Rohtas Industries LTD. vs Workmen Represented By Rohtas Industries Mazdoor Sangh
- SCC(1977) 2 SCC 153
- AIRAIR 1977 SC 1867
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An industrial tribunal cannot refuse a party the opportunity to examine witnesses solely on the ground that the party failed to submit a written statement earlier; such refusal violates natural justice, and the tribunal must afford reasonable opportunity to both parties to present evidence, including rebuttal evidence, before making its award on the substantive merits of the dispute.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
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.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free