Skip to content


Rohtas Industries Ltd. Vs. Workmen Represented by Rohtas Industries Mazdoor Sangh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 1012 of 1976
Judge
Reported inAIR1977SC1867; 1977LabIC1190; (1977)2SCC153
ActsIndustrial Disputes Act - Sections 10
AppellantRohtas Industries Ltd.
RespondentWorkmen Represented by Rohtas Industries Mazdoor Sangh and anr.
Excerpt:
- indian succession act (39 of 1925), sections 74 & 82 :[s.b.sinha & v.s.sirpurkar,jj] construction of will recourse to arm chair rule held, when doubt arises as to intention of testator, conduct of testator in dealing with property in question and surrounding circumstances become relevant for ascertaining intention of testator. sections 74 & 82: construction of will - demised property was self-acquired property of testator - testator, however, declaring that he and his brother are owners of property having equal share - that ownership of first floor will be of his sons and family members of his brother would be owners of 2nd floor held, doctrine of family settlement will apply in such case. will should be given a broad construction keeping in view special equity principle. .....which scale of pay?1. shri pukhan2. shri ram naresh3. shri mahadeo4. shri harigovind5. shri umraon singh6. shri deonarain7. shri suraj singh8. shri bishamdeo9. shri baban singh10. shri jagdish11. shri sheodeni12. shri ram pratap13. shri ganeshi14. shri deonandan15. shri rampati16. shri ram bilash17. shri suraj choubey18. shri ramlakhan chaudary19. shri baliram20. shri gautam giri21. shri sahdeo sharad22. shri angad.2. we have admitted the appeal and have heard learned counsel for both sides. the learned counsel for the respondents strenuously contends that the management has, by its conduct, forfeited its right to examine witnesses before the tribunal. we are not impressed by this argument. the tribunal refused to allow the management an opportunity to examine witnesses on the sole.....
Judgment:

P.K. Goswami, J.

1. There was a reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Patna under Section 10(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act There were several items of dispute referred to the Tribunal for adjudication and the Tribunal gave its award on 31st January. 1974. The management has filed the application of special leave. When this matter had earlier come up for hearing this Court issued notice to the respondents to show cause why special leave should not be granted only with regard to Item No. 6, namely 6 in the Schedule of reference, which may be quoted:

6. Whether the following Malis are entitled to be departmentalised? If so, since when and in which scale of pay?

1. Shri Pukhan

2. Shri Ram Naresh

3. Shri Mahadeo

4. Shri Harigovind

5. Shri Umraon Singh

6. Shri Deonarain

7. Shri Suraj Singh

8. Shri Bishamdeo

9. Shri Baban Singh

10. Shri Jagdish

11. Shri Sheodeni

12. Shri Ram Pratap

13. Shri Ganeshi

14. Shri Deonandan

15. Shri Rampati

16. Shri Ram Bilash

17. Shri Suraj Choubey

18. Shri Ramlakhan Chaudary

19. Shri Baliram

20. Shri Gautam Giri

21. Shri Sahdeo Sharad

22. Shri Angad.

2. We have admitted the appeal and have heard learned Counsel for both sides. The learned Counsel for the respondents strenuously contends that the management has, by its conduct, forfeited its right to examine witnesses before the Tribunal. We are not impressed by this argument. The Tribunal refused to allow the management an opportunity to examine witnesses on the sole ground that it had not earlier submitted the written statement. That ground in an industrial matter, would not be sufficient to refuse examination of witnesses when the management later on pressed for it. This is against the principles of natural justice. It appears from the award that the Tribunal came to its conclusion in respect of item No. 6 relying upon certain documents without giving an opportunity to the management to produce evidence in rebuttal. In view of this we cannot sustain the award with regard to item No. 6. The appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for disposing item No. 6 referred to above preferably within 3 months from receipt of this order after giving reasonable opportunity to both parties. The award in respect of other items stands. There will be no order as to costs.


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