THE BAT A SHOE CO. (P) LTD. versus D. N. GANGULY & OTHERS

THE BAT A SHOE CO. (P) LTD. versus D. N. GANGULY & OTHERS

The reference was valid since the September 2, 1954 settlement was not binding under s. 18 due to lack of conciliation officer's approval. The dispute retained its industrial character. Where proper managerial inquiry was held and misconduct merited dismissal, the tribunal should not interfere without evidence of unfair labour practice or victimisation.

Parties
Appellant: The Bata Shoe Co. (P) Ltd.; Respondents: D. N. Ganguly & Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 December 1960
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeals / Appeal by Special Leave From Award Dated February 24, 1959, of the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, Patna, in Reference Nos. 10 of 1959 and 1 of 1955
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed
Legal Topics
Industrial Disputes, Illegal Strike, Managerial Enquiry, Dismissal of Workmen, Settlement, Conciliation Proceedings, Competence of Reference, Tribunal's Power of Reinstatement
Labour Law Industrial Disputes Illegal Strike Managerial Enquiry Dismissal of Workmen Settlement Conciliation Proceedings Competence of Reference +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Bata Shoe Co. (P) Ltd.

Appellant

D. N. Ganguly & Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeals / Appeal by Special Leave From Award Dated February 24, 1959, of the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, Patna, in Reference Nos. 10 of 1959 and 1 of 1955

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a settlement reached during conciliation proceedings bars reference under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, s. 18
  2. 2 Whether the dispute referred was an industrial dispute or an individual dispute
  3. 3 Justification for Tribunal's order for reinstatement of dismissed workmen

Ratio Decidendi

The reference was valid since the September 2, 1954 settlement was not binding under s. 18 due to lack of conciliation officer's approval. The dispute retained its industrial character. Where proper managerial inquiry was held and misconduct merited dismissal, the tribunal should not interfere without evidence of unfair labour practice or victimisation.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed

Orders

  • Order of reinstatement set aside for forty-seven workmen.
  • Order of reinstatement confirmed for thirteen workmen (two not served with charge-sheet, eleven not properly served).