Skip to content


Indian Tea Employees' Union Vs. Labour Court and Ors. (10.02.1967 - GUHC) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject;Labour and Industrial
CourtGuwahati High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantIndian Tea Employees' Union
RespondentLabour Court and Ors.
Prior history
C.S. Nayudu, C.J.
1. Two points have been urged in this civil rule by Sri Lahiri, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He claimed that wages should have been allowed to the workman from the date of suspension, that is, 21 April 1959, till the date of the award in this case, namely, 22 December 1964, and that the labour court ought to have made provision for payment of the wages in its award. The second point taken is that there was insufficient evidence, which almost amounted to no evidenc
Excerpt:
- - hence, we are clearly of opinion that the presiding officer's conclusion on the evidence before him cannot be interfered with by us. but since he was under suspension he is entitled to be paid whatever wages are payable to him for a person placed under suspension like him having regard to the standing orders and instruction on this question......counsel for the petitioner. he claimed that wages should have been allowed to the workman from the date of suspension, that is, 21 april 1959, till the date of the award in this case, namely, 22 december 1964, and that the labour court ought to have made provision for payment of the wages in its award. the second point taken is that there was insufficient evidence, which almost amounted to no evidence, to justify the conclusion reached by the presiding officer.2. we find on an examination of the record and the conclusion reached by the presiding officer of the labour court, which is not disputed by sri lahiri, that there is the evidence of the assistant manager in support of the case of insubordination and dis-obedience of orders put forward by the management. the presiding officer also.....
Judgment:

C.S. Nayudu, C.J.

1. Two points have been urged in this civil rule by Sri Lahiri, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He claimed that wages should have been allowed to the workman from the date of suspension, that is, 21 April 1959, till the date of the award in this case, namely, 22 December 1964, and that the labour court ought to have made provision for payment of the wages in its award. The second point taken is that there was insufficient evidence, which almost amounted to no evidence, to Justify the conclusion reached by the presiding officer.

2. We find on an examination of the record and the conclusion reached by the presiding officer of the labour court, which is not disputed by Sri Lahiri, that there is the evidence of the assistant manager in support of the case of insubordination and dis-obedience of orders put forward by the management. The presiding officer also refers to the evidence of the chaukidar on the point that the workman was given orders to attend to the plucking operations at 6 a.m. on 15 April 1959. If the presiding officer chose to accept this evidence and acted upon it, it is not for us in exercise of special writ jurisdiction to reappreciate and reexamine this evidence to see whether the presiding officer was justified in acting upon the same and holding it sufficient to support the charge. The case would have been quite different if it were a case of no evidence at all, but it is not such a case. Hence, we are clearly of opinion that the presiding officer's conclusion on the evidence before him cannot be interfered with by us.

3. As regards the wages payable to the workman, the Supreme Court decision in the case of Sasa Musa Sugar Works (Private), Ltd. v. Shobrati Khan 1959-II L.L.J. 388, is an authority for the position that the management is bound to pay wages to the workman from the date of suspension till the award is given by the industrial tribunal. Following this decision we hold that the workman is entitled to the wages for the period. But since he was under suspension he is entitled to be paid whatever wages are payable to him for a person placed under suspension like him having regard to the standing orders and instruction on this question. As the suspansion order was made only on 21 April 1959, the work man would be entitled to fall wages up to that date and for the subsequent period till the date of the award, that is, 22 December 1964, he would be entitled to be paid whatever wages are payable to him for persons placed under suspension. The matter should be gone into by the presiding officer of the labour court and the correct figure arrived at and the workman would be paid the determined amount alter making deduction of the amount, if any, paid to the workman under this head.

4. We accordingly confirm the conclusion reached by the presiding officer of the labour court but send the case back to him for determining the amount payable to the workman on the lines indicated by us above. After determining the amount the presiding officer will direct that the management shall pay to the workman the amount found to him. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //