MANAGEMENT OF SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES LTD.versusSUNDARAM INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION

                       [2013] 16 S.C.R. 1090


A      MANAGEMENT OF SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES LTD.
                             v.
        SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION
             (Civil Appeal No. 11016 of 2013)

                       DECEMBER 13, 2013
B
           [T.S. THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.]

        Labour Li::lvv - Misconduct - Punishment - Proportionality
  - Appellant-Company engaged in manufacture of rubber
C products - Issuance of fresh instructions by management of
  appellant-Company requiring the workmen (working as
  moulders to operate the rubber moulding machines) to place
  the bag of their production on the electronic weighing scale
  instead of placing them on the floor at the end of the shift as
D they were doing till that time - The workmen considered this
  responsibility to be involving not only additional work in
  carrying the production bag to the weighing machine but also
  in devoting additional time beyond the shift hours without any
  additional remuneration for the same and refused to carry out
E the fresh instructions - Held: Refusal of the workmen to carry
  out the fresh instructions issued by the management was not
   without a lawful or reasonable justification and could not at any
  rate be described as contumacious - Inasmuch as the
   workmen concerned had declined to undertake this additional
F responsibility which was not only consuming additional time
   but also additional effort they could not be accused of either
                                                            .
   deliberate defiance or misconduct that could be punished -
   Tribunal was in that view wrong in holding that the charge
   framed against the respondents was proved - Refusal to carry
   out the instructions requiring workmen to do additional work
G beyond the shift hours clearly tantamounted to changing the
   conditions of service of the workmen which was impermissible
   without complying with the requirements of s. 9-A of the
   Industrial Disputes Act - Even assuming that the finding

H                                1090
    MGMT. OF SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES LTD v. SUNDARAM            1091
             INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION

  regarding the .commission of misconduct is left undisturbed,       A
  the circumstances in which the workmen were alleged to have
  disobeyed the instructions issued to them did not justify the
  extreme penalty of their dismissal - At any rate, the Labour
  Court having exercised its discretion in setting aside the
  dismissal order on the ground that the same was                    B
. disproportionate, the High Court was justified in refusing to
  interfere with that order under Article 226 of the Constitution
  ""'."·In any event, no compelling reason to invoke extraordinary
  power under Article 136 of the Constitution or to interfere with
  the orders passed by the two Courts below - lndustr.ial            c
  Disputes Act, 1947 - s.9A - Constitution of India, 1950 -
  Articles 136 and 226.

      Labour Law - Misconduct - Punishment - Proportionality
 - Held: Whether or not the punishment is disproportionate
 more often than not depends upon the circumstances in which         D
 the alleged misconduct was committed, as also the nature of
 the misconduct

       Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or.XU, r. 22 - Judgment
  - Held: Ajudgment can be supported by the party in whose           E
  favour the same has been delivered not only on· the grounds
  found in his favour but also on grounds that may have been
· held against him by the Court below.

      The appellant-company is engaged in the
                                                                     F
 manufacture of rubber products for various industrial
 applications. 488 of its employees were working as
 moulders to operate the rubber moulding machines. The
 management of. appellant-company required the
workmen engaged as moulders to place their individual
 bags of production on the weighing scale at the end of              G
 their work shift. 13 moulders declined to abide by the said
 instructions, and were thus placed under suspension.
 Aggrieved, the respondent-union raised a dispute before
.the Labour Officer who advised the union and its
 workmen to tender an apology to the management and                  H
    1092      SUPREME COURT REPORTS           (2013] 16 S.C.R.


A an undertaking to the effect that they would not repeat
  their acts in future.

        The appellant's case is that despite the apology and
   undertaking furnished pursuant to the said advice, the
:B defaulting workmen not only continued ~isobeying the
   instructions but succeeded in enticing three others to
   follow suit, thereby disrupting the work in the factory. The
   appellant initiated disciplinary proceedings against them;
   and pending such proceedings the workmen concerned
   were placed under suspension. The inquiry initiated
 C against the workmen culminated in their dismissal on the
   charges of misconduct, persistent disobedience and
   insubordination.

      The respondent-union approached the Industrial
D Tribunal, which held that although the domestic inquiry
  conducted by the management against the delinquent
  workmen was fair and proper and the charges stood
  proved, the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the
  workmen was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity
E of the offence, and accordingly directed their
  reinstatement with 50% back wages. The order passed
  by the Tribunal was upheld by the High Court, and
  therefore the present appeal.

           Dismissing the appeal, the Court
F
       HELD:1. Whether or not the punishment is
  disproportionate more often than not depends upon the
  circumstances in which the alleged misconduct was
  committed, as also the nature of the misconduct. [Para
G 9] [1098-F]
        2. In the instant case, the discord between the
   workmen and the management arose entirely out of the
   management requiring the workmen to place the bag of
 H their production on the electronic weighing scale instead
  MGMT OF SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES LTD v. SUNDARAM          1093
          INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION

of placing them on the floor at the end of the shift as they   A
were doing till the management issued fresh instructions
that demanded that the workmen carry their production
bags to the· electronic weighing scale for weighment..The
workmen considered this additional responsibility to be
involving not only additional work in car!ying the             B
production bag to the weighing machine but also in
devoting additional time beyond the shift hours without
any additional remuneration for the same: [Para 10] [1099-
0-F]

     3. The refusal of the workmen to carry out the            C
instructions issued by the management was not without
a lawful or reasonable justification. The same could not
at any rate be described as contumacious. The essence
of the matter was whether the management could,
without additional remuneration, ask the workmen who           D
were responsible for attending to the production work
alone to do additional work which was hitherto being
done by another group of workmen, especially when
compliance with the instructions to the workmen would
require them to tie their production bags, carry them to       E
the weighing machine, wait in the queue till the process
was to be completed and leave only thereafter. In the
course of hearing before this Court, it was fairly
conceded by the representative of the appellant that
since the number of moulders working in the                    F
establishment was fairly large and weighing machines
limited in number, the workmen had to wait in a queue
for their turn to have their production weighed which was
earlier being done by some other workmen who were
disbanded. Inasmuch as the workmen concerned had               G
declined to undertake this additional responsibility which
was not only consuming additional time but also
additional effort they could not be accused of either
deliberate defiance or misconduct that could be
punished. The Tribunal was in that view wrong in holding       H
    1094     SUPREME COURT REPORTS          [2013] 16 S.C.R.

A that the charge framed against the respondents was
  proved. Refusal to carry out the instructions requiring
  workmen to do additional work beyond the shift hours
  was clearly tantamount to changing the conditions of
  service of the workmen which was impermissible without
B complying with the requirements of Section 9-A of the
  Industrial Disputes Act. [Para 13] [1101-C-H; 1102-A-C]

       4. The Tribunal had no doubt held the charges to
  have been proved but it had, despite that finding, set
  aside the dismissal of the workmen on the ground that
C the same was disproportionate to the gravity of the
  misconduct. It had on that basis directed reinstatement
  with 50% back wages. To that extent the award was in
  favour of the workmen which they had no reason to
  challenge. But that did not mean that in any proceedings
D against the award the respondent workmen could not
  support the direction for their reinstatement on the
  ground that the finding of the Tribunal regarding proof of
  misconduct. was not justified. The legal position is fairly
  well settled that a judgment can be supported by the
E party in whose favour the same has been delivered not
  only on the grounds found in his favour but also on
  grounds that may have been held against him by the
  Court below. This is evidenced from Order XLI Rule 22
  of the CPC. The principle underlying the above provision
F is applicable even to Appeals by Special Leave under
  Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the
  contention that the finding regarding commission of
  misconduct by the workmen cannot be assailed by the
  workmen in these proceedings, is rejected. [Paras 14, 15
G and 16] [1102-D-G; 1104-B; 1105-F]
       Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of
    Mumbai and Anr. 2004 (3) SCC 214: 2004 (1) SCR 483 -
    relied on.
H        5. Even assuming that the finding regarding the
    MGMT. OF SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES LTD v. SUNDARAM         1095
             INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION

commission of misconduct is left undistu_rbed, the A
circumstances in which tlie workmen are alleged to have
disobeyed the instructions issued to them did not justify
the extreme penalty of their dismissal. At any rate, the
Labour Court having exercised its discretion in setting·
aside the dismissal order on the ground that the same·. B
was disproportionate, the High Court was justified in
refusing to interfere with that order under Article 226 of· .
the Constitution. There is in any event no compelling --
reason to invoke extraordinary power under Article 136 •· ·
of the Constitution or to interfere with what has been.· c
done by the two Courts below. [Para 17) (1105-G-H; 1106-.
A-BJ
                      Case Law Reference :
       2004 (1) SCR 483        relied on            Para 15       D
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
 11016 of 2013.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 27.04.2011 of the
 High Court of Madras in MP No. 1 of 2011: WA No. 702 of          E
 2011.
      K. K. Venugopal, Veda, Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi forthe     .
· Appellant.                                ·

       V. Prakash, Rahul Joshi; S. L Aneja for the Respondent.
                                                                  F
       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted.
      2. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated
 27th April, 2011 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court    G
 of Judicature at Madras whereby Writ Appeal No. 702 of 2011
 and M.P. No.1 of 2011 filed by the appellant have been
 dismissed and order dated 28th February, 2011 passed:by a
 learned Single Judge of that Court in Writ Petition No.8019 of
 2010 affirmed.
                                                                  H
    1096     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 16 S.C.R.


A      3. The appellant-company is engaged in the manufacture
  of rubber products for various industrial applications. It had, at
  the relevant point of time, 877 employees in its establishment. _
  As many as 488 of these employees were working as moulders
  to operate the rubber moulding machines. The moulding work
B involved placing rubber into the moulding press which would
  then be pressed into rubber components and marketed for
  varied industrial and commercial uses.

        4. In March 1999, the management of the appellant-
  company required the workmen engaged as moulders to plaee
C their individual bags of production on the weighing scale at the
  end of their work shift. That procedure was observed for about
  a week whereafter 13 out of 488 moulders declined to abide
  by the instructions issued by the management. The defaulting
  members of the work force were on that basis placed under
D suspension by the management. Aggrieved by the action taken
  against its members, the respondent-union raised a dispute
  before the Labour Officer who advised the union and its
  workmen to tender an apology to the management and an
  undertaking to the effect that they would not repeat their acts
E in future.

        5. The appellant's case is that despite the apology and
  undertaking furnished pursuant to the said advice, the defaulting
  workmen not only continued disobeying the instructions but
F succeeded in enticing three others to follow suit, thereby
  disrupting the work in the factory. The appellant took note of
  the disobedience shown by the workmen concerned and
                                         •
  initiated disciplinary proceedings against them in April, 1999.
  Pending such proceedings the workmen ·concerned were
G placed under suspension on the charge of their having
  persistently refused to follow the instructions despite an apology
  and undertaking furnished by them earlier. The inquiry initiated
  against the workmen culminated in the dismissal of the
  delinquent workmen based on the charges of misconduct,
  persistent disobedience and insubordination proved against
H
   MGMT. OF SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES LTD v. SUNDARAM              1097
    INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

them. The respondent-union once again espoused the cause . A
of the workmen and approached the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai
  a
in reference made by the Government for adjudication of the
dispute. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that although the
domestic inquiry conducted by the management against the
delinquent workmen was fair and proper and the charges stood B
proved, the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the
workmen was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the
offence. The Tribunal accordingly set aside the order of
dismissal passed against the workmen and directed their
reinstatement with 50% back wages.                                    c
     6. Aggrieved by the award made by the Tribunal, the
appellant preferred Writ Petition No.8019 of 2010 before the
High Court at Madras which was heard and dismissed by a
learned Single Judge of that Court by his order dated 28th
February, 2011. Writ Appeal No.702 of 2011 and M.P. No.1              D
of 2011 filed by the management also failed and were
dismissed by a Division Bench of that Court. The present
appeal assails the said orders as noticed above.

     7. Appearing for the appellant Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned       E
senior counsel, strenuously argued that the Tribunal and so also
the High Court were in error in interfering with the punishment
imposed upon the defaulting workmen. He urged that the
conduct of the delinquent workmen was wholly unjustified having
regard to the fact that they had, in the course of the proceedings    F
before the Labour Officer, Madurai, not only apologised for their
misconduct but filed an undertaking in writing to obey their
superior officers in the future. It was only on that basis that the
management had revoked the orders of suspension issued by
it and permitted the workmen to resume their duties. Viewed           G
in that background the workmen were not justified, argued Mr.
Venugopal, to go back on their promise and undertaking and
refuse to place their individual bags of production on the
weighing scale as instructed to do so. Inasmuch as the
workmen had continued with their deliberate and defiant
                                                                      H
      1098    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 16 S.C.R.
     ..
A    attitude despite a chance given to them to improve their
     conduct, they did not deserve any sympathy, nor could the
     punishment 'of dismissal from service on proof of the charges
     framed against them be considered disproportionate to the
     gravity of the misconduct committed by them.
B
        8. On behalf of the respondent-union it was argued by Mr.
  V. Prakash that the Tribunal and so also the High Court were
  justified in interfering with the orders of dismissal passed
  against the workmen. The orders of dismissal were, according
  to the learned counsel, not only on facts but even in equity
C unsustainable, the same having been passed in a spirit of
  vengeance and with a view to deter other workmen from
  objecting to a practice which was, on the face of it, unjustified
  involving additional work beyond the shift hours without the
  management paying any additional wages for the same. The
D Tribunal and the High Court having exercised their powers fairly
  and reasonably, there was, according to the learned counsel
  no reason, much less a compelling one, for this Court to
  interfere with the impugned orders.

E·     9. The short question that falls for determination is whether
  the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in holding that the
  penalty of dismissal imposed upon the workmen was
  disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct allegedly
  committed by them. Whether or not the punishment is
F disproportionate more often than not depends upon the
  circumstances in which the alleged misconduct was committed,
  as also the nature of the misconduct. That makes it necessary
  for us to briefly refer to the real controversy that gave rise to
  the proceedings culminating in the dismissal of the workmen.
G The proceedings, it is common ground, started with a report
  dated 11th April, 1999 submitted by the Supervisor to the
  Manager (Personnel) in which he said:

          "All the workmen had been earlier informed that instead
          of placing the bags of their production on the floor at end
H         of shift they were to place the bags on the electronic
  MGMT. OF SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES LTD v. SUNDARAM             1099
   INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

    weighing scale placed there. Mr. J.O. Jose Ba/an also           A
    knows about it. While all the workmen were adhering to
    the above procedure, Mr. Jose Ba/an .refused to place his
    bag of production on the weighing scale on the above
    said dates. Every time I mentioned about this he said "my
    shift time has ended. I will not work after that. Therefore I   B
    cannot weigh." On all th,e days he refused to do the work,
    I informed him that work even for five minutes after shift
    end, cannot be considered as overtime and th.at already
    he was working only.for 7-112 hours in a shift of 8 hours
    the balance half hour being lunch time and so he would          c
    be wrong in saying that shift has ended or this is more
    work. In spite of this he refused to do that work, but placed
    the bags of washers produced on the floor and left without
    getting his time-card signed."

     10. It is evident from the above that the discord between D
the workmen and the management arose entirely out of the
management requiring the workmen to place the bag of their
production on the electronic weighing scale instead of placing
them on the floor at the end of the shift as they were doing till
the management issued fresh instructions that demanded that E
th.e workmen carry their production bags to the electronic
weighing scale for weighment. The workmen considered ti'lis
additional responsibility to be involving not only additional work
in carrying the production bag to the weighing machine but also
in devoting additional time beyond the shift hours without any F
additional remuneration for the same. The workmen set out the
necessary facts in the claim statement filed by the Union on their ·
behalf before the Industrial Tribunal in which they stated:

     "The management had also directed the moulders to put          G
     all the produced rubber wasf;lers in a gunny bag and tie
     them, which work was hitherto done by another team. For
     this work also, the management promised higher wages
     and the workers are now doing both the aforesaid works,
     but the management failed to fulfil its promise to pay         H
    1100     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2013] 16 S.C.R.


A       higher wages for doing the extra work. This takes one
        hour more to do the quality control check and also put
        all the manufactured washers into the gunny bag after the
        shift hours. For this overtime work, the management is
        not giving any overtime pay to the workers."
B
        11. Before the Tribunal the respondent-union adduced
  evidence to substantiate their claim that the instructions issued
  by the management required the workmen to tie the bag of their
  production, carry the same to the weighing machine, wait for
C their turn in a queue to have the production bag weighed and
  get the necessary entries regarding the same made, which in
  turn took upto an hour after the shift was over. Deposition of S.
  Thangaswamy, President of the respondent-union, in this
  regard is relevant when he states :

D       "Jn the respondent establishment the work of the moulders
        is only to do the operations in connection with the
        production of the rubber auto components. The
        inspection of the components produced was that of
        another group consisting of the Manager, Supervisors
E       and a team of ten workmen. The Management suddenly
        disbanded this group and directed the moulders
        themselves to do the inspection of the components
        produced. The Management assured to monetarily
        compensate the moulders for this additional work. In
F       addition the Management directed them to put and keep
        the finished components in a bag. For this also the
        Management assured to monetarily compensate the
        moulders.

        They had to bag the components produced after shift was
G       over and take it, stand in a queue and have the bags
        weighed. The weighing machine was situated about 100
        to 150 feet from the production table. The weight of the
        bags containing the washers produced by me could be
        from 10 kilos to 150 kilos. After weighment the weight
H       must be entered in the press card and we must have to
   MGMT. OF SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES LTD v. SUNDARAM               1101
    INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

     stand in queue to get it signed as we// as the time card.         A
     To do all this, it will take one hour. As measure of
     victimisation disciplinary action was taken against 15
     workers for having raised a dispute before the court and
     we were dismissed."
                                                                       B
     12. More importantly, the deposition of Mr. Damodaran a
witness examined by the appellant who was at the relevant point
of time working as manager in the moulding department,
makes it clear that the workman had refused to place bags on
the weighing machine at the end of the shift as any such work
had to be done after the shift hours. This is evident from the         C
following part of the deposition:

     "We have three shifts. 8 AM to 4 PM; 4PM to 12 Midnight,
     12 Midnight to 9 AM. It will be right to say that the
     Management's charge against the workmen concerned                 o
     in the dispute is that they refused to place the bags on
     the weighing machine at end of shift. The stand of the
     workman is that they will not do this work after shift hours."

     13. It is thus evident that the refusal of the workmen to carry
                                                                       E
out the instructions issued by the management was not without
a lawful or reasonable justification. The same could not at any
rate be described as contumacious. The essence of the matter
was whether the management could, without additional
remuneration, ask the workmen who were responsible for
attending to the production work alone to do additional work           F
which was hitherto being done by another group of workmen,
especially when compliance with the instructions to the
workmen would require them to tie their production bags, carry
them to the weighing machine, wait in the queue till the process
was to be completed and leave only thereafter. In the course           G
of hearing before us, it was fairly conceded by the
representative of the appellant that since the number of
moulders working in the establishment was fairly large and
weighing machines limited in number, the workmen had to wait
in a queue for their turn to have their production weighed which       H
    1102    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 16 S.C.R.


A was earlier being done by some other workmen who were
  disbanded. Inasmuch as the workmen concerned had declined
  to undertake this additional responsibility which was not only
  consuming additional time but also additional effort they could
  not be accused of either deliberate defiance or misconduct that
8 could  be punished. The Tribunal was in that view wrong in
  holding that the charge framed against the respondents was
  proved. Refusal to carry out the instructions requiring workmen
  to do additional work beyond the shift hours was clearly
  tantamount to changing the conditions of service of the
C workmen which was impermissible without complying with the
  requirements of Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

          14. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the
    respondents-workmen were not legally entitled to assail the
    finding of the tribunal, on the charges framed against them, as
D   the workmen had not assailed the award made by the Tribunal
    before the High Court. The findings of the Tribunal had on that
    account attained finality. We do not think so. The Tribunal had
    no doubt held the charges to have been proved but it had,
    despite that finding, set aside the dismissal of the workmen on
E   the ground that the same was disproportionate to the gravity
    of the misc::onduct. It had on that basis directed reinstatement
    with 50% back wages. To that extent the award was in favour
    of the workmen which they had no reason to challenge. But that
    did not mean that in any proceedings against the award the
F   respondent workmen could not support the direction for their
    reinstatement on the ground that the finding of the Tribunal
    regarding proof of misconduct was not justified. The legal
    position is fairly well settled that a judQment can be supported
    by the party in whose favour the same has been delivered not
G   only on the grounds found in his favour but also on grounds that
    may have been held against him by the Court below. This is
    evidenced from Order XLI Rule 22 of the CPC which reads :

         "22. Upon hearing respondent may object to decree
         as if he had preferred a separate appeal. - (1) Any
H
MGMT OF SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES LTD v. SUNDARAM           1103
 INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION [TS. THAKUR, J.]

 respondent, though he may not have appealed from any          A
 part of the decree, may not only support the decree [but
 may a/so state that the finding against him in the Court
 below in respect of any issue ought to have been in his
 favour; and may a/so take any cross-objection] to the
 decree which he could have taken by way of appeal             B
 provided he has filed such objection in the Appellant
 Court within one month from the date 'of service on him
 or his pleader of notice of the day fixed for hearing the
 appeal, or within such further time as the Appellate Court
 may see fit to allow.                                         c
 [Explanation.-A respondem aggrieved by a finding of
 the Court in the judgment on which the decree appealed
 against is based may, under this rule, file cross-objection
 in respect of the decree in so far as it is based on that
 finding, notwithstanding that by reason of the decision of    D
 the Court on any other finding which is sufficient for the
 decision of the suit, the decree, is, wholly or in part, in
 favour of that respondent.]

 (2) Form of objection and provisions applicable thereto.      E
 - Such cross-objection shall be in the form of a
 memorandum, and the provisions of rule 1, so far as they
 relate to the form and contents of the memorandum of
 appeal, shall apply thereto.
                                                               F
 3[***}

 (4) Where, in any case in which any respondent has
 under this rule filed a memorandum of objection, the
 original appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed for default,
 the objection so filed may nevertheless be heard and          G
 determined after such notice to the other parties as the
 Court thinks fit.

  (5) The provisions relating to appeals by indigent persons
                                                               i-l :
    1104     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013) 16 S.C.R.


A       sryall, so far as they can be made applicable, apply to
        an objection under this rule."

         15. The principle underlying the above provision is
    applicable even to Appeals by Special Leave under Article 136
    of the Constitution of India as held by this Court in Jamshed
8
    Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai and
    Anr. 2004 (3) SCC 214, where this Court observed:

        "35. A few decisions were brought to the notice of this
         Court by the learned Additional Solicitor General wherein
c       this Court has made a reference to Order 41 Rule 22
         CPC and permitted the respondent to support the decree
        or decision under appeal by laying challenge to a finding
        recorded or issue decided against him though the order,
                 I
        judgment or decree was in the end in his favour.
D        Illustratively, see Ramanbhai Ashabhai Patel, Northern
        Rty. Coop. Society Ltd. and Bharat Kala Bhandar Ltd.
         The learned Additional Solicitor General is right. But we
         would like to clarify that this is done not because Order
         41 Rule 22 CPC is applicable to appeals preferred under
E       Article 136 of the Constitution; it is because of a basic
        principle of justice applicable to courts of superior
        jurisdiction. A person who has entirely succeeded before
        a court or tribunal below cannot file an appeal solely for
         the sake of clearing himself from the effect of an adverse
F       finding or an adverse decision on one of the issues as
        he would not be a person falling within the meaning of
        the words "person aggrieved". In an appeal or revision,
         as a matter of general principle, the party who has an
         order in his favour, is entitled to show that even if the order
         was liable to be set aside on the grounds decided in his
G
        favour, yet the order could be sustained by reversing the
         finding on some other ground which was decided against
         him in the court below. This position of law is supportable
         on general principles without having recourse to Order 41
         Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Reference may
H
  MGMT OF SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES LTD v. SUNDARAM              1105
   INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION [TS. THAKUR, J]

    be had to a recent decision of this Court in Nalakath.          A
     Sainuddin v. Koorikadan Sulaiman and also Banarsi v.
     Ram Phal. This Court being a court of plenary
    jurisdiction, once the matter has come tp it in appeal,
     shall have power to pass any decree and make any order
     which ought to have been passed or ma9e as the facts           B
     of the case and law applicable thereto call for. Such a
     power is exercised by this Court by virtue of its own
    jurisdiction and not by having recourse to Order 41. Rule
     33 CPC though in some of the cases observations are
     available to the effect that this Court can act on the         c
     principles deducible from Order 41 Rule 33 CPC. It may
     be added that this Court has jurisdiction to pass such
     decree or make such order as is necessary for doing
     complete justice in any cause or matter pending before
     it. Such jurisdiction is conferred on this. Court by Article   0
     142 of the Constitution and this Court is not required to
     have recourse to any provision of th.e Code of Civil
     Procedure or any principle deducible therefrom.
     However, still, in spite of the wide jurisdiction being
     available, this Court would not ordinarily make an order,      E
     direction or decree placing the party appealing to it in a
     position more disadvantageous than in what it would have
     been had it not appealed."

     16. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the
contention that the finding regarding commission of misconduct      F
by the workmen cannot be assailed by the workmen in these
proceedings.

     17. Even assuming that the finding regarding the
commission of misconduct is left undisturbed, the G
circumstances in which the workmen are alleged to have
disobeyed the instructions issued to them did not justify the
extreme penalty of their dismissal. At any rate, the Labour Court
having exercised its discretion in setting aside the dismissal
order on the ground that the same was disproportionate, the H
    1106     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 16 S.C.R.

A High Court was justified in refusing to interfere with that order
   under Article 226 of the Constitution. There is in any event no
   compelling reason for us to invoke our extraordinary power
   under Article 136 of the Constitution or to interfere with what
   has been done by the two Courts below. But for the fact that
B there is no appeal or challenge to the denial of full back wages
   to the workmen, we may have even interfered to award the
 . same to the workmen. Be that as it may, this appeal is destined
   to be dismissed and is, hereby, dismissed with costs assessed
   at Rs.25,000/-
C   Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                           Appeal dismissed