Holding

The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating discrimination and unfair labour practice not specified in the reference, and its order of reinstatement without a proper hearing is set aside.

Summary

Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. dismissed 102 workmen for alleged "go‑slow" after a strike. A settlement led to 76 being temporarily re‑employed and 25 remaining dismissed. The Industrial Tribunal was asked to adjudicate reinstatement of 12 of the 25 workmen (demand 1(A)) and the status of the 76 (demand 1(B)). The Tribunal awarded reinstatement of the 12 workmen, finding that the employer had acted with discrimination and unfair labour practice, despite the charge‑sheets being vague and the inquiry improper. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding on discrimination, a matter not specified in the reference schedule, and that it must confine itself to the points of dispute under Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court affirmed that where an inquiry is improper, the Tribunal may permit the employer to lead evidence, but it cannot order reinstatement without such a hearing. Consequently, the award was set aside and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for proper adjudication on the reinstatement claim.

Issues considered

Whether the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the issue of discrimination and unfair labour practice not expressly referred to in the schedule of reference under Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether the Tribunal could order reinstatement of the dismissed workmen without a proper inquiry and without giving the employer an opportunity to adduce evidence.
Whether a vague charge‑sheet amounts to an improper inquiry, thereby permitting the Tribunal to take evidence on the merits.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 10(2), s. 10(4), s. 33(2)(b), s. 33(3)(b)

Subjects

industrial disputetribunal jurisdictionunfair labour practicediscriminationreinstatementproper inquirycharge‑sheetprotected workmen

Judgment

A 20

FIRESTONE TYRE AND RUBBER COMPANY
OF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
v.
B THE WORKMEN EMPLOYED REPRESENTED BY
FIRESTONE TYRE EMPLOYEES' UNION

July 22, 1981

c
[A.C. GUPTA, V.D. TULZAPURKAR AND R.S. PATHAK, JJ.]

Industrial dispute-Jurisdiction-Whether the Tribunal could address itself
-
only to a question of discriminatian without confining its adjudication to those
points and matters incidental thereto, as specified in the industrial dispute-Indus-
trial Disputes Act, 1947 section JO ( 4} scope of.

The appellant company carries on the business of manufacturing tyres,
D tubes and several other products in Bombay,, The workmen in the company's
tyre-curing department adopted a deliberate "go-slow" policy resulting in fall in
production. On September 14, 1967 the management put up a notice asking the
workmen to desist from continuing with the go-slow tactics. The notice,
however, had no effect and from October 4, 1967 the workmen in the tyre-curing
department went on a strike.

E Between October 27 and 31, 1967 the management issued chargesheets to
102 workmen alleging that they had resorted to wilful go-slow. The workmen
refrained from participating in the inquiries conducted by three inquiry officers
and the inquiry reports went against the workmen. The management accepted
the findings of the inquiry officers and dismissed the workmen other than those

-
who were "protected workmen'' as defined in the explanation to section 33 (3) (b)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; an application was made under the said
F provision for permission to dismiss the "protected workmen". As a reference
concerning an earlier dispute was pending before the lribunal, an application
was also made under section 33 (2) ( b) of the Act for approval of the action of
the management in dismissing the workmen.

Subsequently, on April 17, 1968 the parties reached a settlement, Under
the settlement the strike was withdrawn, the dispute concerning the dismissal of
G the workmen was referred for adjudication by a joint application made by the
parties under section 10 (2) of the Act, and 76 of the dismissed workrnen were
re-employed till the disposal of the adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal. The
demand set out in para 1 (A) of the Schedule to the order of reference relates to
25 workmen who were not reinstated and demand in para 1 (B) of the Schedule
relates to the 76 workmen who were temporarily reinstated. Following a further
H settlement all the 76 workmen mentioned in para 1 (B) were taken back and
made permanent and the demand set out in Para 1 (B) was allowed to be with·
drawn as not pressed by the award dated January 10, 1973. In the meantime,
FIRESTONE v. WORKMEN (Gupta, J.) 21

13 out of the 25 workmen covered by demand I (A) also reached a settlement A
with the management and withdrew the dispute relating to them. The dispute
on which the impugned award was n1ade was thus restricted to demand in
para l (A) concerning 12 workmen only out of25. The Tribunal by its award
dated December 9, 1976 directed the company to reinstate these 12 workmen on
the ground, inter alia, that they were denied for no valid reason the same treat-
ment meted out to 76 other workmen and that the management was thus guilty
of discrimination and unfair labour practice, Hence the appeal by special B
leave.

Allowing the appeal in part and remitting the case to the Industrial Tribu-
nal, the Court

- HELD : 1. The Tribunal travelled outside its jurisdiction in recording a
finding of unfair labour practice and discrimination. In this case, the points of
dispute were specified in the Schedule to the order of reference, and the Tribunal
was, therefore, required to confine its adjudication to those points and matters
c
that were incidental to them. From a reading of demands 1 (A) and 1 (B) as a
whole it is clear that the demand for reinstatement in respect of both groups
of workmen as made arises on the alleged invalidity of the action taken by
the management in dismissing these workmen. The issue of unfair labour pactice
or discrimination by reason of subsequent reinstatement on a permanent basis D
of some and not all the 25 workmen wa~ not a matter referred to the Tribunal
for adjudication, nor it can be said to be in any way connected with
or incidental to the right of reinstatement claimed by the 101 workmen from the
date of their dismissal. The fairness of subsequent absorption of some workmen
is a matter quite irrelevant for judging the validity of the earlier dismissal of
these workmen along with others; it is an entirely separate and independent
• question. The Tribunal also did not frame an issue on the alleged discrimina- E
tion. [26 H-27 A; 26 F-G]

2. It is settled law now that when no inquiry has been held or the inquiry
held has not been proper, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to allow the manage-
ment to lead evidence to justify the action taken. Nor1nally the inquiry by the

- management starts by issuing the charge-sheet to the workmen proposed to be
discharged or dismissed. In a case where the charge-sheet is vague it must be
held that there has been no proper inquiry. (27 B-D)
F

In the inst~nt case, having found that proper charge-sheet has not been
served on the workmen, the Tribunal was entitled to ask the parties to lead evi-
dence to enable the Tribunal to decide the merits of the dispute. The order
directing reinstatement of the 12 workmen without a consideration of the merits
of the case cannot be sustained. [27 F; 28 D] G
M/s. Bharat Suger Mills Ltd. v. Shri Jai Singh and others, [1962] 3 SCR 684
at 690 and Management of Ritz Theatre (P) Ltd. v. Its Workme~ (1963) 3 SCR
461 at 468, followed.

CIVIL APPELLATE }URJSDICEION Civil Appeal No. 1794 (NL)
H
of 1977.
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 3 s.c.R.

A From the award d1ted 23.1.1977 of the Industrial Tribunal,
Maharashtra, Bombay in Reference (LD.) No. 307 of 1968.

KK. Venugop:J, Rameshwar Nath and Ravindcr Nath, for the
Appellant.

B M.K. Ramamurthi, A.D. Sastri and Mrs. Urmila Sirur, for
the Respondent.

Shardul S. Shroff and H.S. Parihar for the interveners.

c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

GUPTA J. This is an appeal by special leave from an award
made by the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, on December 9, 1976 in
-
Reference No. 307 of 1968 directing reinstatement of 12 workmen
dismissed by the appellant, Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of
India Private Limited. The appellant company carries on the busi- .
ness of manufacturing tyres, tubes and several other products in
D
Bombay. Disputes arose between the management and the work-
men employed in the company's tyre-curing department leading to
a strike by these workmen from March 3, 1967. This strike was
called off on May 15, 1967, according to workmen on certain assura-
nces given by the Commissioner of Labour. The case of the manage-
ment is that even after the workmen resumed work, they adopted a •
E
deliberate 'go-slow' policy resulting in fall in production. On
September 14, 1967 the management put up a notice asking the work-
men to desist from continuing with the go-slow tactics. The notice
however had no effect and from Octa ber 4, 196 7 the work-
men working in the tyre-curing department again went on a
strike.
F
Between October 27 and 31, 1967 the management issued
chargesheets to ]( 2 workmen alleging that they had resorted to
wilful go-slow. The chargesheets issued were in identical language
and they read as follows :
G "You are charged with the following act of miscon-
duct under 1:,e Company's certified standing order
No. 24 (C), viz.

'Wi! ful slowing down in performance of work or
H
abetment, or instigation thereof.'
FIRESTONE v. WORKMEN (Gupta, J.) 23

You have wilfully slo\led down in performance.of work A
as per particulars given below:-"
+
The particulars were then mentioned. Three inquirv officers
were appointed to inquire into the c~arges. Almost all the work,
men refrained from participatinr, in fre inquiries; tl'e 12 workrr.en
concerned in this appeal also remJined absent. The inquiry officers B
found the workinen guilty of adopting wi:ful go-slow tactics .. The
management accepted th•findings of the inquiry of11cer3 and dis-
missed the workmen other than those who were 'protected workmen•
as defined in the explanation to section 33 (3) (b) cf the Industrial·
Disputes Act, 1947. The management also decided to dismiss the
, protected workmen. As a reference concerning an earlier dispute c
(Reference No. 406 of 1967) was pending before the Tribunal, appli-
. cations were made section 33-(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act
for approval of the action of the management in dismissing the work-
men and under section 33 (3) (b) for permission to dismiss 'the pro-
tected-workmen.
D
It appears that subsequently, on April 17, 1968 the parties
reached a settlement. The more important terms of the settlement
were:-

(I) The Firestone Tyre Employees Union agreeJ to with-
draw the strike. E

(2) The_dispute relating to tl1e di•missal of JO; workmen
(one of the workmen concerned ba\.'i:1g di·~d in the
meantime) was tv to refared for adjudicati•'n by a
joint application maC== by t'.1e parties und~f sec-
tion 10 (2) of the Industrial D:<;iutes Act F

(3) 77 of the dismissed workmen· were h b! re-employed
on temporary basis till th:: disposal cf the adju::lication
by the Industrial Trib"nal.
•
(4) The remaining 25 workmen, including ti~e 12 we are G
concerned within this app~al, \Vere not to be taken back
but the management woo'd pay to tkm 5) per cent of
their basic' wages and dearness alluwance from the
date of the retirement till the disposal of the adjudica-
. tion by the Tribunal. H
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] I S.C.R

A As agreed a joint application by the parties was made on
which the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Bombay, nnder sec-
tion 10 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Reference No. 307 of
1968) referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, the disputes bet-
ween the parties relating to the demands detailed in the schedule to
the order of reference. Two distinct matters are mentioned in para-
B graphs I and 2 of the schedule. The second matter mentioned in
paragraph 2 does not survive for consideration. The first para-
graph which is divided into two parts, /,A) and (B) reads as
follows:

G

-
"SCHEDULE

I (A) : The workmen listed at Serial Nos. l to 25 of 'Sche-
dule I' [which contains names of the 12 workmen
concerned in this case] hereto should be reinstated
in their former employment with continuity of service
and other benefits and should be paid full wages,
D dearness allowance and other allowances from the
date of dismissal of each of the workmen till each is
so reinstated without any condition attached to such
payment.

(B) : The workmen listed at Serial Nos. 26 to I 0 I of
E 'Schedule I' hereto who are at present re-employed
on a temporary basis should be granted reinstate-
ment in their employment from the date of dis-
missal of each and should be granted continuity of
service and other benefits and also should be paid
full wages, dearness allowance and other allowances
F from the date of dismissal of each till each was re-
employed, without any condition being attached to
such payment."

During the pendency of the reference all the 76 workmen
covered by paragraph I (B) of the Schedule who had been taken back
G on temporary basis were made permanent as a result of settlements
reached between these workmen and the management. On behalf
of 33 out of 76 of these workmen, the union entered into a settlement
with the management, the remaining workmen of this group
individually entered into settlements with the management. The '
H period during which the workmen were absent from duty was treated
as leave without pay and continuity of their service was maintained.
FIRESTONE v. WORKMEN (Gupta, J.) 25

The Union representing the aforesaid 33 workmen, and the remaining A
workmen out of this group of 76 individually, withdrew demand
No. 1 (B) in view of the settlements entered into by and between
these workmen and the management. By an award dated January
10, 1973 the Tribunal disposed of demand No. 1 (B) as not pressed.

In the meantime 13 out of the 25 workmen covered by demand B
1 (A) also reached a settlement with the management and withdrew
the dispute relating to them; the terms of settlement were that these
workmen would submit their resignations and be paid one month's
basic wages and dearness allowance for each year of service along

- with gratuity, leave wages, provident fund and the balance bonus
due to them. They were also to retain the wages for one month
paid to them when they were dismissed. The dispute on which the
c

impugned award was made was thus restricted to demand No. I (A)
concerning 12 workmen only out of 25.

The Tribunal by its award dated December 9, 1976 directed D
the appellant company to reinstate the 12 workmen named against
serial Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, IO, II, 13, 18, 22, 23, 25 of Schedule I to
the order of reference with continuity of service and full wages,
dearness and other allowances. On the question of back wages, the
matter was left to be decided later on evidence. The dismissal of
these workmen was set aside on the following findings :-
E
I. The inquiry held by the mangement was vitiated
because,

(a) chargesheets had not been served and notice of
inquiry not given to 2 ont of 12 workmen;

(b) 2 out of the 3 inquiry officers were biased; F

(c) some of the workmen were not furnished with
copies of certain documents relied on by the
inquiry officers; and,

(d) the chargesheets served on the workmen did not G
contain necessary particulars regarding the go-
slow tactics adopted by each of them.

2. All the IOI workmen bad been found guilty of go-slow
but 76 of them were reinstated on a permanent basis ff
and the remaining 25 workmen were denied the same
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] I S.C.R.

A treatment for no good reason. The management was
thus guilty of discrimination and unfair labour practice.

We will take the finding of discrimination first as this is the
ground on which the 12 workmen were straightaway ordered to be
reinstated. The Tribunal having found that the inquiries held
B against the workmen had not been proper noted that it was well
settled that in such a situation the employer should be given an
opportunity to adduce evidence before the Tribunal in support of
the action taken by them, but proceeded to hold that in view of the
other finding that the 12 workmen had been unfairly discriminated
against, they were entitled to reinstatement and therefore no useful
c purpose would be served by permitting the management to adduce -
evidence seeking to justify the dismissal of the workmen on the
ground of misconduct. It was contended on behalf of the appellant
that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to address itself to the question
of discrimination. Section IO (4) of the Industrial .oisputes Act lays
down:
D
"Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to
a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal under this
section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Govern-
ment has specified the points of dispute for adjudication,
E the Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal as the
case may be, shall confine its adjudication to those points
and matters incidental thereto".

In this case the points of dispute were specified in the schedule
to the order of reference, and the Tribunal was therefore required
F to confine its adjudication to those points and matters that were
incidental to them. From a reading of demands I (A) and I (B) as
a whole it is clear that the demand for reinstatement in respect of
both groups of workmen as made arises on the alleged invalidity of
the action taken by the management in dismissing these workmen.
The issue of unfair labour practice or discrimination by reason of
G subsequent reinstatement on a permanent basis of some and not all
the 25 workmen was not a matter referred to the Tribunal for
adjudication, nor it can be said to be in any way connected with or
incidental to the right of reinstatement claimed by the IOI workmen
from the date of their dismissal. The fairness of subsequent absorp-
H tion of some workmen is a matter quite irrelevant for judging the
validity of the earlier dismissal of these workmen along with others;
it is an entirely separate and independent question. The Tribunal
FIRESTONE v. WORKMEN (Gupta, J.) 27

also did not frame an issue on the alleged discrimination. That A
being so, we think the Tribunal travelled outside its jurisdiction
in recording a finding of unfair labour practice and discrimination.

We find no reason to disturb the finding that the inquiry held
was not proper. The Tribunal has found that the chargesheets
issued were vague as they did not disclose the relevant material on
which the charges were based. It was contended on behalf of the B
Union on the basis of this finding that no useful purpose would be
served by remitting the case to the Tribunal. It is settled law now
that when no inquiry has been held or the inquiry held has not been

- proper, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to allow the management to
lead evidence to justify the action taken. · The contention is that the
charge-sheets being vague, the Tribunal would not be in a position
to decide what evidence to let iu, and, therefore, sending the matter
c
back to the Tribunal would only be an idle formality. It is not
possible to accept this contention. Normally an inquiry by the
management starts by issuing a charge-sheet to the workmen pro-
posed to be discharged or dismissed. In a case where the chargesheet
is vague, it must be held that there bas been no proper inquiry. In D
M/s. Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shri Jai Singh and athers,(') this
Court held :

"But the mere fact that no inquiry has been held or
that the inquiry bas not been properly conducted cannot
absolve the Tribunal of its duty to decide whether the case E
that the workman has been guilty of the alleged misconduct
has been made out. The proper way for performing this

-
duty where there has not been a proper inquiry by the
management is for the Tribunal to take evidence of both
sides in respect of the alleged misconduct".
F
Whether in a case, as the one before us, where it is found that proper
charge-sheets had not been served on the workmen, the Tribunal
can ask the parties to lead evidence to enable the Tribunal to decide
the dispute between them is directly covered by an authority of this
Court. In Management of Rif.z Theatre (P) Ltd. v. Its Workmen, (2 ) G
Gajendragadkar J. (as he then was) speaking for the Court said :

" ..... .if it appears that the departmental enquiry held
by the employer is not fair in the sense that proper charge
H
(I) [1962] 3 S.C.R. 684, 690.
(2) rt 963] 3 S.C.R. 461, 468.
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982) l s.c.R.

A had not been served on the employee or proper or full
opportunity had not been given to the employee to meet
the charge, or the enquiry has been affected by other grave
irregularities vitiating it, then the position would be that
the Tribunal would be entitled to deal with the merits of
the dispute as to the dismissal of the employee for itself.
B The same result follows if no enquiry has been held at all.
In other words, where the Tribunal is dealing with a
dispute relating to the dismissal of an industrial employee,
if it is satisfied that no enquiry has been held or the
enquiry which has been held is not proper or fair
or that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are
c perverse, the whole issue is at large before the Tribunal.
This position also is well settled".
-
In view of the well-settled legal position, the order directing
reinstatement of the 12 workmen without a consideration of the
merits of the case cannot be sustained. We therefore remit the case
D to the Industrial Tribunal to decide the dispute concerning the
demand specified in ·paragraph 1(A) of the Schedule to the order of
Reference after giving the parties concerned an opportunity to lead
evidence in support of their respective cases.

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above, this Court
E by order dated August 2, 1977 had directed the appellant to pay
the costs of the appeal to the respondents in any event. The
respondents will be also entitled to retain the sums of money paid
to them by the appellant under orders of this Court.

F Appeal allowed.
V.D.K.