{"id":108305,"date":"1967-01-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-01-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-northern-vs-industrial-tribunal-rajasthan-on-27-january-1967"},"modified":"2017-10-01T05:19:23","modified_gmt":"2017-09-30T23:49:23","slug":"management-of-northern-vs-industrial-tribunal-rajasthan-on-27-january-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-northern-vs-industrial-tribunal-rajasthan-on-27-january-1967","title":{"rendered":"Management Of Northern … vs Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, … on 27 January, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Management Of Northern … vs Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, … on 27 January, 1967<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1182, \t\t 1967 SCR (2) 476<\/div>\n
Author: V Bhargava<\/div>\n
Bench: Bhargava, Vishishtha<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMANAGEMENT OF NORTHERN RAILWAYCO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nINDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n27\/01\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\nBENCH:\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\nMITTER, G.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR 1182\t\t  1967 SCR  (2) 476\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1972 SC1201\t (15)\n R\t    1972 SC1954\t (8)\n RF\t    1972 SC2195\t (16)\n RF\t    1975 SC1900\t (8)\n\n\nACT:\nIndustrial   Dispute--Domestic\t enquiry-Natural    justice,\nrequirements of.\nRes judicata-- Petition filed under Art. 226 of Constitution\nof India- Competency  of reference of dispute to  Industrial\nTribunal  challenged--High  Court  dismissing\tpetition--No\nappeal filed against High  Court's\torder--Question\t  of\nCompetency of reference whether can be raised in  appeal\nagainst Tribunal's award.\nSupreme\t  Court\t  appeal  against   Industrial\t  Tribunal's\naward--Respondent whether can challenge Tribunal's order  on\ngrounds not accepted by tribunal.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nRespondent,No. 2 Was employed as Head Clerk in the Appellant\nSociety\t which\twas a  cooperative society of  railway\tmen.\n-The  Society levelled certain charges against him and\tsome\nother erployee and a committee was appointed to enquire into\nthe said-charges.  The request made by Respondent No.2\tthat\na 'railway worker or an official of the railway workers this\naccount he refused to appear at the enquiry which  proceeded\nin his Union be allowed to accompany him at the enquiry\t was\nturned\tdown absence.  On receipt of the enquiry  committees\nreport\tthe  Vice-President  of the soceity  gave  a  second\nnotice\tto Respondent No. 2 asking him to show cause why  he\nshould\tnot  be\t dismissed.   He asked\tfor  copies  of\t the\nproceedings  at\t the  enquiry  but   this  request  was\t not\ncomplied,  with\t and  despite his  -submissions\t he  was  di\nmissed.\t  Adverse  orders  were also  passed  against  other\nemployees.   The railway workers Union thereupon  raised  an\nindustrial   dispute  which  was  referred  by\t the   State\nGovernment to the industrial Tribunal.\tThe Society filed  a\nwrit  petition\tunder Art. 226 of the  Constitution  on\t the\nground\tthat the dispute having been raised by, the  railway\nworkers\t Union\tand not the Society's  own  employees,\tthe:\nreference  to  the Tribunal war, not  competent.   The\tHigh\nCourt dismissed the petition.  Tbereafter the Tribun,  heard\nthe matter and held, so far as Respondent No. 2 was conceme,\nthat  (i) the charges against him, were vagup, (ii) that  he\nwas  not entititled  to be accompanied at the enquiry  by  a\nstranger,  and\t(iii)  that the\t  enquiry  against  him\t was\nvitiated owing to a denial of natural justice.\tThe Society,\nby special leave, appealed to this Court.\nHELD  : (i) The appellant's plea relating to the  competency\nof the reference was barred by res judicata as the same plea\nhad  been raised by the appellant before the High Court\t and\nhad  been rejected.  Ile order of the High Court was not  an\ninterlocutory  order  but  a final 6rdbr in  regard  to\t the\nproceedings  under Art. 226.  The appropriate remedy for  to\nthis  Court'  either bv a certificate underart.\t 133  or  by\nspecial leave under Art. 136 of the constitution [483 F; 484\nD]\nSathyadhyan Ghosal & Ors. v.Sm. Deorajin Debi & Anr.   [19W]\n3 S.C.R, 590, distinguished.\n477\nRamesh and Anr.\t V. Gendalal Motilal Patni & Ors.,<\/a> [1966]  3\nS.C.R. 198, relied on.\n(ii)  The respondents were entitled to support the  decision\nof  the Tribunal even on grounds which were not accepted  by\nthe  Tribunal  or on other grounds which may not  have\tbeen\ntaken  notice of by the Tribunal while they were  patent  on\nthe face of the record. [486 D]\nRamanbhai  Ashabhai  Patel  v. Dabhi  Ajitkumar\t Fulsinji  &\nOrs.,A.I.R.<\/a> 1965 S.C. 669 and Powari Tea Estate v. Barkataki\n(M.K.) and Ors.,\n[1965] 11 L.L.J. 102, relied on.\n(iii)\t  The\tTribunal  rightly  held\t that\tthe   second\nrespondent was not entitledto be represented by a stranger\nto  the Society at the enquiry proposed to be  held  against\nhim. [487 D-E]\n(iv)The charges against the second respondent were vague and\nthe  material  which was available in support  of  them\t was\nnever  disclosed  to him.  In these circumstances  the\tmere\nrefusal\t of the second respondent to appear at\tthe  enquiry\nwould  not satisfy the requirements of natural\tjustice\t and\nmake the enquiry valid. [487 F-G]\nThe  second  notice  issued by the  Society  to\t the  second\nrespondent was not required by any rule or law analogous  to\nArt.  311 of the Constitution, but In the instant case\tthis\nsubsequent opportunity was the only opportunity which  could\nhave  satisfied the requirements of- natural  justice.\t But\nthis opportunity also was not adequate because copies of the\nproceedings  against  him were not supplied  to\t the  second\nrespondent.-[487 H-488 A]\nThe Tribunal was therefore fully justified in setting  aside\nthe order of removal based on the report of the committee of\nenquiry. [488 A-B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : CIVIL Appeal No. 496 of 1965.
\nAppeal by special leave from the award dated October 7\t1963
\nof  the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan Jaipur in Case No.  2
\nof 1959.\n<\/p>\n
K.L.  Gosain, S. C. Malik, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta,\t for
\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n
R..K.  Garg, S. C. Agarwala, Marudhar Mridul and Mohan,\t Lai
\nCalla, for respondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nBhargava,  J.  The appellant in this appeal, brought  up  by
\nspecial\t leave, is the Northern Railway Co-operative  Credit
\nSociety\t Ltd.,\tJodhpur\t (hereinafter referred\tto  as\t“the
\nSociety”)  which is an Association of the employees  of\t the
\nNorthern Railway at Jodhpur registered in 1920 under the Co-
\noperative Societies Act.  The Society had in its  employment
\n10  or\t11 persons including Kamraj Mehta, the\tHead  Clerk,
\nMadho  Lal,  the Accountant, and three other Clerks,  A.  C.
\nSharma,\t V. D. Sharma and G. S Saxena.\tAt a meeting of\t the
\nCommittee  of  Management held on 6th April,  1956,  it\t was
\ndecided to hold the 36th and 37th Annual
\n478<\/span>
\nGeneral\t Meeting of the Shareholders for the  years  1953-54
\nand  1954-55  on 28th April, 1956, i.e., after a  period  of
\nabout 22 days.\tThereafter, Kanraj Mehta, the Head Clerk, on
\n8th  April,  1956,  applied for leave  on  medical  grounds,
\nhaving\tsubmitted  a  certificate from\ta  registered  Vaid.
\nInitially,  the\t application for leave was for\tfour  days,.
\nbut, by subsequent applications, he continued to extend\t his
\nleave  up  to  2nd  May,  1956.\t  The  other.  four  Clerks,
\nmentioned above, also, put in applications between 12th\t and
\n15th  April,  1956  on\tsimilar\t Medical  Certificates\t and
\ncontinued their leave up to dates falling between 30th April
\nand  4th May, 1956.  The industrial dispute decided  by\t the
\naward, against which the present appeal is directed, related
\nto  four of these Clerks- Kanraj Mehta, A. C. Sharma, V.  D.
\nSharma\tand G. S. Saxena, against -whom the Society  decided
\nto  take  disciplinary action, The case of the\tSociety\t was
\nthat these persons had conspired to paralyse the working  of
\nthe  Society at of the impending ‘Annual,General Meeting  on
\n28th  April,  1956,  by\t collectively  submitting   sickness
\ncertificates.\tIn  the case of Kanraj\tMehta,\tthe  Society
\nissued\ta  letter in response to his application  for  leave
\ndirecting him to attend the Railway Dispensary, at 7.45 hrs.
\non 20th April, 1956 :and asking him to report to Dr. I B. P.
\nMathur for medical examination.\t   Kanraj  did\tnot   comply
\nwith   this   direction\t and  continued\t to   send   further
\napplications for leave accompanied by the certificates ofthe
\nVaid.\t His   leave  applications   were   never   actually
\nsanctioned,  but  he was allowed to resume  duty  after\t the
\nexpiry\t-of  the  leave\t asked\tfor  by\t him  in  his\tlast
\napplication, i.e.. on 3rd May, 1956.  Then on the 19th. day,
\n1956,  the  Society issued a – charge-sheet  against  Kanrai
\nMehta containing five charges which .are reproduced below
\n\t      “(i) To instigate and conspire to paralyse the
\n\t      working  of  the Society at the  time  of\t the
\n\t      impending Annual General Meeting on  28-4-1956
\n\t      by collectively submitting sick certificates.\n<\/p>\n
\t       (ii) Disobedience of orders in not  attending
\n\t      for    Medical\tExamination    vide    Hony.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Secretary’s  letter No. CCS\/Est. of  19-4-1956
\n\t      which goes to show that you were not  prepared
\n\t      to  face\tthe medical examination as  you\t had
\n\t      pretended to be sick.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (iii) Taking  active  part in  the  issue\t and
\n\t      distribution   of\t certain   leaflets   issued
\n\t      against the Management of the Society.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (iv)  Carrying\tvilifying   propaganda\t  in
\n\t      connection  with the elections of the  Society
\n\t      at the Annual General Meeting on 28-4-1956.\n<\/p>\n
\t       479<\/span><\/p>\n
\t       (y)  instigating\t the depositors to  withdraw
\n\t      their  deposits  from  the  Society  and\tthus
\n\t      undermining   the\t  very\texistence   of\t the
\n\t      Institution.\n<\/p>\n
In  the charge-sheet, Kanraj was asked to show cause  within
\nseven  days, why he should not be dismissed from service  or
\npunished  with any lesser penalty.  Charge-sheet  were\talso
\nserved\toil the other employees mentioned above.   Since  in
\nthis appeal we are only -concerned with the case -of Kanrai,
\nwe need give details of the facts relating to his case only.
\nOn,  25th May, 1956,.  Kanraj sent his reply to the  charge-
\nsheet.\t In that reply, he took the plea that here  were  no
\ndisciplinary  framed  and issued for the  employees  of\t the
\nSociety, and added that, if the rules were being enforced on
\nthe  analogy  of’ the Railway Rules, he\t would\trequest\t the
\nSecretary of the Society to let him know what offence he had
\ncommitted  and\thow that offence bad been  constituted.\t  He
\nfurther\t pleaded that the charges. leveled against him\twere
\nvague and were not specific.  He then proceeded to deal with
\nall the five charges, and in the case of four of them  viz.,\n<\/p>\n
(i),  (iii), (iv) and (v) the plea put forward was  that  in
\nthe  absence  of details he could not answer the  a  charges
\nproperly,  though he denied- those charges.  At the end,  he
\nmade  a\t request that if an. enquiry is held, he  should  be
\nallowed to bring either a Railway or a trade Union official,
\nspecially  shareholders\t who had interest in  the  Society’s
\naffairs and constituted the very structure of the Society in
\norder  to  represent  him.   A\tCommittee  of  Enquiry\t was
\nappointed, consisting of Shri Deodutta Gaur as Chairman, and
\nBhailal and Vishvadeo Purohit as members to enquire into the
\ncharges against Kanraj.\t The information of the constitution
\nof this Committee was conveyed to Kanraj by the letter dated
\n28th  June  1956,  and he was also told\t that  he  would  be
\nallowed to be accompanied by any employee of the Society  at
\nthe enquiry if he so desired, but not by any other person as
\nrequested by him.  Kanraj, however continued to insist\tthat
\nhe must be permitted to be accompanied by a Railway employee\n<\/p>\n
-or a Union official, particularly because he was the senior
\nmost employee of the Society and he could not expect to get.
\nany  assistance\t from  any other  junior  employee.  ,\tThis
\ncorrespondence went on, and his request was not acceded\t to.
\nUltimately,  on the date fixed for enquiry, Kanraj’  refused
\nto appear on the ground that  he had not been allowed to  be
\nrepresented as desired by him.\n<\/p>\n
The  Committee\tthen submitted its report on  4th  August,..
\n1956.\tIn  the report, the Committee first  considered\t the
\nquestions.  whether it should proceed to record evidence  of
\npersons\t who  had lodged complaints  regarding\tthe  charges
\nleveled\t against  Kanraj, or whether it\t should\t submit\t its
\nreport\tand findings on the basis. of the  record  available
\nbefore the Committee.  The report of the
\n480<\/span>
\nCommittee mentions that it decided to submit its report\t and
\nfindings  on  the  basis of the record\tbefore\tthe  Enquiry
\nCommittee,  and\t that,\tthereafter,  the  evidence   already
\navailable  on record, which had been earlier  considered  by
\nthe Vice-Chairman before issue of the charge-sheet, was duly
\nexamined, The Committee further considered it inadvisable to
\ncomment\t on  this material as it held it to be\tas  good  as
\nbefore\tand recorded its view that the charges\tstill  stood
\nproved.\t On receipt of this report, the Vice-Chairman of the
\nSociety asked the Committee to give its independent  opinion
\nin  the case as to whether Kanraj was guilty of the  charges
\nlevelled or not.  In reply to this, the Committee  mentioned
\nthat the charges -stood proved.\t In this subsequent  report,
\nthe  Committee added that, before arriving at the  decision,
\nit  had examined all evidence on record\t independently,\t and
\nhad  also examined three to four witnesses verbally and\t had
\nfound that they corroborated the evidence already on record.
\nIt  was stated that the witnesses examined verbally  related
\nto  charges (i), (iii), (iv) and (v) [in the report (ii)  is
\nan error for (iii)].\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter, on 5th September, 1956, the Vice-Chairman issued
\na  fresh notice to Kanraj, stating that he had come  to\t the
\nprovisional  decision that Kanraj should be  dismissed\tfrom
\nservice\t for  offences\tdetailed in  the  charge-sheet,\t and
\ncalling upon him to show cause in writing not later than the
\nend of seven days from the date of receipt of the notice why
\nthe  proposed  penalty\tshould\tnot  be\t imposed  upon\thim.
\nThereupon,  Kanraj, on 13th September, 1956, sent  a  letter
\nrequesting  the Vice-Chairman to supply to him a full  ,copy
\nof  the\t proceedings and findings of the  Enquiry  Committee
\nenumerated  in its report, which had been considered by\t the
\nVice-Chairman  resulting  in  the  provisional\tdecision  to
\nremove\thim from service.  He added that on receipt of\tthis
\nmaterial,  he  would reply to the above show  cause  notice.
\nThe Honorary Secretary of the Society, on the same day, sent
\na  reply  to this letter, stating that\tthe  application  of
\nKanraj\thad  been considered by the  Vice-Chairman  who\t had
\nasked  the  Secretary to inform him that it was\t only  as  a
\nmatter\tof grace that he was being given another three\tdays
\nto  reply  to the show cause notice, and that there  was  no
\nenquiry report envisaged in the Railway Board’s order as the
\nenquiry\t could not be held.  It was further added  that\t the
\nreport\twas only that the employee did not participate,\t and
\nKanraj was told that any dilatory replies would not be taken
\nas proper replies and action would be taken under the Rules.
\nKanraj,\t on 16th September, 1956, sent a further  letter  in
\nreply to this letter sent by the Hony.\tSecretary.  In\tthis
\nletter, he made a grievance of the fact that he had not been
\npermitted  to  be  represented\tas desired  by\thim  in\t the
\nenquiry,  and took notice of the fact that  the\t provisional
\ndecision  of  the Vice-Chairman had been arrived at  on\t the
\nbasis  of  the report of the Enquiry  Committee\t which\tonly
\nreported that he did not parti-\n<\/p>\n
 481<\/span><\/p>\n
cipate.\t  Then\the  proceeded to plead\tnot  guilty  to\t the
\ncharges\t and again gave an explanation on  each\t individual:
\ncharge.\t  Once again the grievance made ‘included  the\tplea
\nthat  the  charges were vague.\tOn 17th September,  1956,  a
\nletter\twas then issued under the signature of the  Honorary
\nSecretary  informing  Kanraj that he had been  removed\tfrom
\nservice with elect from the 17th September, 1956, and he was
\nasked  to  hand\t over charge to the  Accountant,  Megh\tRaj.
\nMinor\tpunishments  were  also\t awarded  to   three   other
\nemployees, A. C. Sharma, V D. Sharma and G. S. Saxena.
\n Thereupon, the dispute relating to the removal of Kanraj
\nand  the award of punishment to the other  three  employees.
\nwas taken up by the Uttariya Railway Mazdoor Union, Jodhpur,
\nand at the request sent through the Secretary of that  Union
\na  reference was made by the Government of Rajasthan to\t the
\nIndustrial  Tribunal1, Rajasthan, Jaipur, under s.  10(1)(d)
\nof,  the  Industrial Disputes Act No. 14 of  1947.   In\t the
\nreference, two issues were raised which were as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(1) Whether the removal of Shri Kanraj by the
\n\t      Management   of  the  Northern   Railway\t Co-
\n\t      operative Credit Society, Jodhpur on the 17-9-
\n\t      19,56 and the stopping of the grade increments
\n\t      of  Sarvashri Acheleshwar V. D. Sharma and  G.
\n\t      S. Saxena.  ‘was illegal or unjustified;
\n\t      (2)If   so,  what\t relief\t these\tworker\t are
\n\t      entitled to’ ?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Tribunal discussed in detail the case of Kanraj and held
\nthat  the demand of Kanraj to be allowed to take  assistance
\nfrom  a stranger to the Society was unjustified\t and  Kanraj
\ncould\tnot  succeed  in  assailing  the  validity  of\t the
\nproceedings  of\t the Board of Enquiry on this  ground.\t The
\nTribunal,  however,  held  that\t Kanraj\t was  justified\t  in
\ndemanding  from the Vice-Chairman of the Society  copies  of
\nthe documents which he mentioned ‘when the second notice was
\nissued to him, as he was entitled to receive copies of\tboth
\nthe reports of the Committee before he could be called\tupon
\nto  give  an adequate reply to the how\tcause  notice.\t The
\nTribunal  also accepted the plea of Kanraj that the  charges
\nwhich  had been framed against Kanraj were rather vague\t and
\nKanraj\twas  not wrong in his averment before the  Board  of
\nEnquiry\t that the charges were vague and that he  could\t not
\ndefend himself on that account.\t On this view, the  Tribunal
\nset aside the order of removal of Kanraj from service passed
\nby the Society, but left it open to the Society, if they  so
\ndesired,  to reinstitute the enquiry and to proceed  against
\nhim in’ accordance with law.  It was further, ordered  that,
\nmeanwhile,  Kanraj stood restored to the -position in  which
\nhe  was\t on 13th September, 1956.  The\tTribunal  also\tmade
\nsuitable orders in the cases of the other three employees
\n482<\/span>
\nA.   C.\t Sharma,  V.  D. Sharma and G. S.  Saxena,  but\t the
\norders in their cases need not be reproduced, as the  appeal
\nbefore us does not relate to their cases.  The appeal by the
\nSociety\t is  directed  against the  order  of  the  Tribunal
\ninsofar\t as  it governs the case of Kanraj Mehta.   In\tthis
\nappeal,\t learned  counsel appearing for\t the  Society  urged
\nthree  points before us and we proceed to take them  one  by
\none.\n<\/p>\n
The first point urged was that, in this case, the  reference
\nto  the\t Industrial Tribunal was  incompetent,\tbecause\t the
\ndispute\t referred to the Tribunal was an individual  dispute
\nof  four employees and was not an industrial dispute  as  it
\nwas  not  taken up by the workmen of the  Society.   It\t was
\nurged  that the Union which had sponsored the dispute was  a
\nUnion  of  Railway  employees only and not  of\tthe  workmen
\nSociety\t which\twas separate and distinct from\tthe  Railway
\nAdministration.\t When this point was raised on behalf of the
\nappellant,  a  preliminary objection was  taken\t by  learned
\ncounsel appearing for the respondents that this plea  sought
\nto  be raised on behalf (if the appellant was barred by\t the
\nprinciple  of  res judicata.  It was urged that,  while\t the
\nreference  was pending before the Industrial  Tribunal,\t the
\nSociety filed a petition under Art. 226 of the\tConstitution
\nin  the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan\tat  Jodhpur,
\npraying\t that a writ of prohibition be issued directing\t the
\nIndustrial  Tribunal to refrain from taking any\t proceedings
\nin  this reference on the ground that the reference did\t not
\nrelate\tto  an\tindustrial  dispute.   The  plea  that\t the
\nreference did not relate to an industrial dispute was on the
\nsame  ground which was sought to be urged before  us,  viz.,
\nthat  the dispute had not been taken up by the\tworkmen,  of
\nthe Society and the sponsoring of the dispute by the Railway
\nEmployees’  Union did not make it an industrial dispute.   A
\nDivision Bench of the High Court, by its judgment dated\t 7th
\nFebruary,  1962,  dismissed the petition  holding  that\t the
\nreference  was competent on the ground that it was at  least
\nsponsored  by 4 out of 11 workmen of the  Society.   Against
\nthat  judgment of the High Court, the appellant\t could\thave
\ncome  up  to this Court in appeal, but failed to do  so\t and
\nsubmitted to that judgment.  The plea of learned counsel for
\nthe respondents was that that judgment ha ring become  final
\nit was no longer open -to the appellant to raise his plea in
\nthe present appeal against the subsequent award given by the
\nTribunal  after exercising jurisdiction which  the  Tribunal
\nwas  permitted\tto  exercise by that judgment  of  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
On behalf of the appellant, learned counsel, however,  urged
\nthat  the order made by the High Court was in the nature  of
\nan  interlocutory order and it was open to the appellant  to
\nchallenge the correctness of that decision of the High Court
\nin this appeal. in support of his proposition that it is not
\nnecessary  that\t an interlocutory order must  be  challenged
\nimmediately by an appeal and
\n 483<\/span>
\ncan be challenged when an appeal is filed against the  final
\norder  in  a civil proceeding, learned counsel relied  on  a
\ndecision  of this Court in Satyadhyan Ghosal and  Others  v.
\nSm.  Deorajin Debi and Another.<\/a>(1) In that case, a  question
\nhad arisen about the applicability of s. 28 of the  Calcutta
\nThika  Tenancy\tAct,  1949.  The plea  relating\t to  it\t was
\nrejected by the Munsif trying the suit.\t Against that  order
\nof the Munsif, a revision was filed in the High Court  under
\ns. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.\tThe High Court\theld
\nthat  the operation of s. 28 of the Act was not affected  by
\nthe  subsequent Amendment Act and remanded the case  to\t the
\nMunsif\tfor  disposal  according to  law.   Thereafter,\t the
\nMunsif\tpassed\tthe ‘final decree in the suit,\tand  against
\nthat decree, an appeal was brought to this Court after going
\nthrough\t the  usual  procedure of moving  the  other  Courts
\nhaving\tjurisdiction.\tIt was in these\t circumstances\tthat
\nthis  Court held that the order of the High  Court,  holding
\nthat  s. 28 of the Act was applicable, could not operate  as
\nres  judicata in the appeal before this Court,\tbecause\t the
\nHigh  Court’s  order of remand was merely  an  interlocutory
\norder which did not terminate the proceedings pending in the
\nMunsif’s Court and which had not been appealed from at\tthat
\nstage.\tConsequently, in the appeal from the final decree or
\norder  it was open to the party concerned to  challenge\t the
\ncorrectness of the High Court’s decision.  It is to be noted
\nthat there were two special features in that case.  One\t was
\nthat  the  order of the High Court, which was  held  not  to
\nbring in the principle of res judicata, was an interlocutory
\norder, and the other was that it was made in a pending\tsuit
\nwhich, as a result of that order, did not finally terminate.
\nIn  fact,  the\torder  of the High  Court  did\tnot  finally
\nterminate any proceeding at all.  On the other hand, in\t the
\ncase before us, the order relied upon by learned counsel for
\nthe respondents was not an interlocutory order .and was\t not
\nmade  in the proceedings pending before the  Tribunal.\t The
\norder of the High Court was made in a completely independent
\nproceeding  instituted by a petition under Art. 226  of\t the
\nConstitution  for  issue of a writ of prohibition.   It\t was
\nheld by this Court in Ramesh and Another v. Gendalal Motilal
\nPatni and Others<\/a>(2) that “when exercising jurisdiction under
\nArt.  226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not\thear
\nan appeal or revision.\tThe High Court is moved to intervene
\nand  to bring before itself the record of a case decided  by
\nor  pending  before  a Court or Tribunal  or  any  authority
\nwithin\tthe  High Court’s jurisdiction.\t A petition  to\t the
\nHigh Court invoking this jurisdiction is a proceeding  quite
\nindependent of the original controversy.  The controversy in
\nthe  High  Court,  in proceedings arising  under  Art.\t226,
\nordinarily is whether a decision of, or a proceeding before,
\na Court or Tribunal or authority, should be allowed to stand
\nor should be quashed
\n(2)  [1966]3 S.C.R. 198.\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 590.\n<\/p>\n
 L2Sup.CI\/67-2
\n484<\/span>
\nfor  want  of jurisdiction or on account of  errors  of\t law
\napparent  on  the  face of the record.\tA  decision  in\t the
\nexercise of this jurisdiction, whether interfering with\t the
\nproceeding  impugned  or  declining. to do so,\tis  a  final
\ndecision in so far as the High Court is concerned because it
\nterminates  finally the special proceeding before it.”\tThis
\nview was expressed when dealing with the question of, appli-
\ncability  of Art. 133 of the Constitution in respect of\t the
\norder  of  the High Court.  In that  connection,  the  Court
\nfurther\t pointed  out  that an appeal or  a  revision  is  a
\ncontinuation  of  the original suit or\tproceeding  and\t the
\nfinality must, therefore, attach to the whole of the  matter
\nand the matter should not be a Eve one after the decision of
\nthe  High  Court if it is to be regarded as  final  for\t the
\npurpose\t of appeal under Art. 133.  Notice was taken of\t the
\nfact ‘that the whole of the controversy had not been decided
\nby  the\t High  Court when there is  an\tappeal\tor  revision
\nagainst-an interlocutory order.\t In these circumstances,  it
\nis  clear  that\t if the appellant wanted  to  challenge\t the
\ncorrectness  of the decision of the High Court holding\tthat
\nthis  dispute  was an industrial  dispute,  the\t appropriate
\nremedy was to come up in appeal against the judgment of\t the
\nHigh  Court  either by a certificate under Art.\t 133  or  by\n<\/p>\n
-special  leave\t under Art. 136 of  the\t Constitution.\t The
\nappellant having failed to do so, the, judgment of the\tHigh
\nCourt  became final, and, consequently, binding between\t the
\nparties.  The parties to that petition were the parties\t now
\nbefore us in this appeal.  In this appeal brought up against
\nthe  award  of the Tribunal, consequently, it is  no  longer
\nopen  to the appellant to raise the plea which was  rejected
\nby the High Court by its judgment dated 7th February,  1962.
\nThe   first  point  raised  on\tbehalf\tof  the\t  appellant,
\ntherefore, fails.\n<\/p>\n
The second point urged by learned counsel was that, in\tthis
\ncase, the Tribunal in its award held that, when the  enquiry
\nwas  held by the Committee appointed by the Society,  Kanraj
\nwas not entitled to claim that he must get assistance from a
\nstranger  to  the  Society and that  the  rejection  of\t his
\nrequest\t  was  justified,  so  that  the  validity  of\t the
\nproceedings before the Committee of Enquiry was not open  to
\nchallenge by Kanraj.  It was urged that in this appeal also,
\nsince  there is no appeal on behalf of Kanraj or  the  Union
\nrepresenting him, this Court could not go into the  question
\nwhether\t the enquiry by the Committee was valid or  invalid.
\nThe   Court  should  confine  itself  to   the\t proceedings
\nsubsequent  to\t13th September, 1956, which is the  date  to
\nwhich Kanraj has been relegated by the Tribunal by directing
\nthat he will stand in the position in which he stood on that
\ndate.  It was further urged that after 13th September, 1956,
\nit was not at all incumbent on the Vice-Chairman to issue  a
\nsecond\tshow cause notice or to give a fresh opportunity  to
\nKanraj to show cause, and that if the Vice-Chairman did\t so,
\nit  was as a matter of indulgence.  The provisions  of\tArt.
\n311 of the
\n 485<\/span>
\nConstitution did not apply, because Kanraj was not a  public
\nservant,  and  the principles of natural  justice  did-\t not
\nrequire\t that  a second show cause notice must be  given  by
\nevery  employer\t after the employer  forms  his\t provisional
\nopinion\t that the punishment or dismissal or removal  should
\nbe  awarded.  It was urged that, consequently, the  Tribunal
\nwas wrong in setting aside the order of removal of Kanraj on
\nthe mere ground that the Vice-Chairman refused to supply  to
\nhim the reports of the Enquiry Committee.\n<\/p>\n
 On behalf of the respondents, this plea was challenged\t and
\nit was urged that it was open to the respondents to  support
\nthe  order of the Tribunal even on grounds  decided  against
\nthe  respondents. or grounds not urged before  the  Tribunal
\nwhich  might  be apparent on the face of  the  record,\teven
\nthough\tthe respondents have filed no appeal.. Reliance\t for
\nthis  proposition was placed on a decision of this Court  in
\nRambhai\t Ashabhai  Patel  v. Dabhi  Ajitkumar  Fulsinji\t and
\nOthers.<\/a>(1) In that case, an appeal was brought to this Court
\nagainst the judgment of an Election Tribunal, and one of the
\nrespondents  wanted to support the order of the Tribunal  on
\ngrounds which had been negatived by the Tribunal.  On behalf
\nof the respondent, reliance was placed on the principle laid
\ndown  in 0. XLI r. 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure.\tThis
\nCourt  took  notice of the fact that in the  Rules  of\tthis
\nCourt there was no Rule analogous to r. 22 of 0. XLI, C.  P.
\nC.,  but held. that the provision nearest to it was the\t one
\ncontained in 0. XVIII, r. 3 of the Rules of this Court which
\nrequired parties to file statements of cases.  Sub-rule\t (1)
\nof  that rule provides that Part 1 of the statement  of\t the
\ncase  shall also set out the contentions of the parties\t and
\nthe  points  of\t law and fact arising  in  the\tappeal.\t  It
\nfurther\t provides that in Part II a party shall set out\t the
\nproposition of law to be urged in support of the contentions
\nof the party lodging the case and the authorities in support
\nthereof.   The Court held that there is no reason  to  limit
\nthe provisions of this rule only to those contentions  which
\ndealt  with the points found in favour of that party in\t the
\njudgment appealed from.\t The Court further proceeded to hold
\nthat “apart from that,we think that, while dealing with\t the
\nappeal before it, this Court has the power to decide all the
\npoints\tarising from the judgment appealed against and\teven
\nin the absence of an express provision like 0. XLI, r. 22 of
\nthe  Code of Civil Procedure, it can devise the\t appropriate
\nprocedure  to be adopted at the hearing.  There could be  no
\nbetter way of supplying the deficiency than by drawing\tupon
\nthe  provisions\t of  a general law like the  Code  of  Civil
\nProcedure  and\tadopting  such of those\t provisions  as\t are
\nsuitable.  We cannot lose sight of the fact that normally  a
\nparty  in whose favour the judgment appealed from  has\tbeen
\ngiven  will not be granted special leave to appeal from\t it.
\nConsiderations of justice
\n(1)  A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 669.\n<\/p>\n
486<\/span><\/p>\n
therefore,  require that this Court should,  in\t appropriate
\ncases,\tpermit a party placed in such a position to  support
\nthe  judgment  in his favour even upon\tgrounds\t which\twere
\nnegatived in that judgment.”\n<\/p>\n
In  an\tappeal brought up against a judgment of\t the  Labour
\nCourt  in  Powari  Tea\tEstate v.  Barkataki  (M.   K.)\t and
\nOthers(1),  this Court was examining the correctness of\t the
\ndecision reached by the Labour Court and, while doing so, it
\nappeared-  that\t the  decision\tof  Labour  Court  could  be
\njustified on a ground to which the Labour Court had not made
\nany  reference.\t  The Court held: “But it appears  from\t the
\nrecord that the decision reached by the Labour Court can  be
\njustified  on another ground to which the Labour  Court\t has
\nnot  referred,\tbut which is patent on\tthe  record.”  After
\nexpressing  this view, the Court proceeded to  examine\tthis
\nground\twhich was patent on the record and upheld the  order
\nof the Labour Court on that ground.  In these circumstances,
\nwe  consider  that learned counsel for\tthe  respondents  is
\njustified  in  urging  before us that  the  respondents\t are
\nentitled  to  support the decision of the  Tribunal  setting
\naside  the  order of Kanraj even on grounds which  were\t not
\naccepted  by the Tribunal or on other grounds which may\t not
\nhave  been taken notice of by the Tribunal while  they\twere
\npatent on the face of the record.\n<\/p>\n
The facts of this case, as enumerated by us above, show that
\nthe charge-sheet which was served on Kanraj was in fact very
\nvague  and did not contain any such details as could  enable
\nhim  to\t give any explanation.\tCharge No. 2  was  the\tonly
\nchange\tin  respect of which full  details  were  mentioned.
\nThat  charge was of disobedience of orders in not  attending
\nfor   medical  examination  in\taccordance   with   Honorary
\nSecretary’s  letter  of\t 19th April,  1956,  from  which  an
\ninference was drawn that Kanraj was not prepared to face the
\nmedical examination because he had pretended to be sick.  So
\nfar  as\t this  charge  is concerned,  there  is\t nothing  to
\nindicate  that\tthere were any rules of\t the  Society  under
\nwhich  Kanraj was required to obey the orders given  by\t the
\nHonorary Secretary to appear for medical examination by\t the
\nparticular  doctor nominated by him.  In the absence of\t any
\nrules,\tKanraj could very well feel justified in relying  on
\ncertificates  obtained\tby  him from  a\t registered  medical
\npractitioner even though he might only be a Vaid  practicing
\nAyurvedic  medicine.  The charge of disobedience of  orders,
\nwhich were not enforceable under any rule, could neither  be
\nthe basis of any order of dismissal or removal, nor could it
\nlead to any inference that Kanraj had merely been pretending
\nto be sick.\n<\/p>\n
As  regards  the remaining four charges, they  were  clearly
\nvery vague.  The first charge, in general terms, stated that
\nKanraj
\n(1)  [1965] II L.L.J. 102.\n<\/p>\n
 487<\/span><\/p>\n
had instigated and conspired to paralyse the working of\t the
\nSociety\t by collectively submitting  sickness  certificates.
\nThe  charge did not mention whom he had instigated  or\twith
\nwhom  he  had  conspired,  nor\tdid  it\t indicate  how\tthis
\nconspiracy was being in ferred.\t Similarly, the third charge
\nof  taking  active  part in the issue  and  distribution  of
\ncertain\t leaflets against the management of the Society\t did
\nnot  at all indicate what those leaflets were an  what\tpart
\nKanraj\thad  taken in the issue and  distribution  of  those
\nleaflets.    The   fourth  charge  of\tcarrying   vilifying
\npropaganda  in connection with the elections of the  Society
\nat  the\t Annual\t General Meeting  on  28-4-1956\t was  again’
\nsimilarly  vague  as there was no specification\t as  to\t the
\npersons with whom this propaganda was  carried on by  Kanraj
\nand  where and when it was done.  In the same way, the\tlast
\nand  the  fifth\t charge of  instigating\t the  depositors  to
\nwithdraw  their\t deposits from the Society  was\t again\tvery
\nvague  as  there was no mention as to which  depositors\t had
\nbeen  instigated  and when they were instigated.   In  these
\ncircumstances,\tKanraj was fully justified in pleading\tthat
\nthe  charges  were  vague and he was unable  to\t show  cause
\nagainst the charges served on him.\n<\/p>\n
It is true that the Tribunal correctly held that Kanraj\t was
\nnot entitled to be represented by a stranger to the  Society
\nat  the enquiry proposed to be held against him.   In  fact,
\nthe  correspondence  which  passed between  Kanraj  and\t the
\nSociety shows that Kanraj was taking a very unreasonable and
\nundesirable  attitude  in  this matter and  his\t conduct  in
\npersistently  demanding representation by a stranger and  on
\nthat account refusing to participate in the enquiry deserves
\nto  be condemned.  That circumstance however, will not\tmake
\nthe  enquiry  valid,  unless it be  held  that\tan  adequate
\nopportunity  was given to Kanraj to meet the charges  framed
\nagainst him.  The charges, as we have indicated above, which
\nwere  served on Kanraj were very vague and he had no  oppor-
\ntunity\tto  give a reply to them.  The\tmaterial  which\t was
\navailable  in  support\tof  these  charges  was\t also  never
\ndisclosed to him.  The mere fact that Kanraj did not  appear
\non  the\t date  fixed  for the enquiry  will  not,  in  these
\ncircumstances, satisfy the requirement of the principles  of
\nnatural\t justice  that\the should. have\t been  told  of\t the
\ndetails of the charges and the material available in support
\nof  these  charges should have been disclosed  to  him.\t  It
\nseems  to us that it was in view of this omission  that\t the
\nsubsequent  notice was given by the Vice-Chairman to  Kanraj
\nto  show  cause\t when  the,  Vice-Chairman  had\t formed\t his
\nprovisional  opinion  on  the basis of\tthe  report  of\t the
\nCommittee of Enquiry that the charges were proved and Kanraj
\nshould be removed from service.\t This subsequent show  cause
\nnotice\tby the Vice-Chairman was, no doubt, not required  by
\nany  rule or law analogous to Art. 311 of the  Constitution,
\nbut  in the instant case this subsequent  opportunity  which
\nwas offered by the Vice-Chairman ‘was the only oppor-\n<\/p>\n
488<\/span><\/p>\n
tunity\twhich  could  have  satisfied  the  requirement\t  of
\nprinciples  of\tnatural\t justice,  because  in\tthe  earlier
\nenquiry Kanraj had already been prejudiced by the  vagueness
\nof  the charges and by the omission to disclose to  him\t the
\nmaterial  in support of those charges.\tIn the\tenquiry,  no
\nadequate  opportunity  having  been  given  to\tKanraj,\t the
\nTribunal was perfectly justified in setting, aside the order
\nof removal based on the report of the Committee of  Enquiry,
\nand  it appears that it was in view of the aspect  explained
\nby us above that the Tribunal proceeded to lay down that  it
\nwas,.open  to-the Society to institute a fresh\tenquiry\t and
\ngive an opportunity to Kanraj to show cause after  supplying
\ncopies of necessary documents to him as claimed by him\twhen
\nthe  notice  dated 13th September, 1956 was issued  to\thim.
\nConsequently,  we  consider  that the order  passed  by\t the
\nTribunal was fully justified.\n<\/p>\n
The  third and the last point urged by learned\tcounsel\t for
\nthe  appellant was that, even if the Tribunal held that\t the
\norder  of -removal of Kanraj was unjustified,  the  Tribunal
\nshould\tnot  have directed his\treinstatement,\tbecause\t the
\nSociety\t had taken a specific plea before the Tribunal\tthat
\nthe  Society had lost confidence in Kanraj.  In\t support  of
\nthis proposition, learned counsel relied on the decision  of
\nthis  Court  in\t Assam\tOil  Co.  Ltd.,\t New  Delhi  v.\t Its
\nWorkmen.<\/a>(1) It appears to us that there might have been some
\nforce in this submission if the position had still  remained
\nas  it\twas  when  the\tTribunal  made\tits  direction\t for
\nreinstatement.\t We  were,  however,  informed\tby   learned
\ncounsel\t for the appellant that, subsequent to the order  of
\nthe  Tribunal,\tKanraj\twas actually  reinstated  and  fresh
\nproceedings  for  his dismissal were taken  by\tthe  Society
\nagainst\t him.\tThe information given was that, in  fact,  a
\nfresh  order of removal of Kanraj from service\thas  already
\nbeen passed and that order is the subject matter of  another
\nindustrial  dispute before an Industrial Tribunal.  In\tthat
\nindustrial dispute, the question of the compensation payable
\nto  Kanraj is also under consideration.\t We think,  that  in
\nview of these subsequent proceedings, it would not now be at
\nall appropriate for this Court to set aside the order of the
\nTribunal  directing reinstatement of Kanraj and thus  create
\ncomplications  in respect of these  subsequent\tproceedings.
\nThe position might have been different if we had come to the
\nview that the Tribunal was altogether wrong in setting aside
\nthe order of removal from service of Kanraj.  While ,ye\t are
\nof the view that that order was justified, we do not,  think
\nthat  any  interference with the rest of the  order  of\t the
\nTribunal is called for.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
G.C.\t\t\t     Appeal dismissed.\n(i) A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 1264.\n489<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Management Of Northern … vs Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, … on 27 January, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1182, 1967 SCR (2) 476 Author: V Bhargava Bench: Bhargava, Vishishtha PETITIONER: MANAGEMENT OF NORTHERN RAILWAYCO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/01\/1967 BENCH: BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-108305","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nManagement Of Northern ... vs Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, ... on 27 January, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-northern-vs-industrial-tribunal-rajasthan-on-27-january-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Management Of Northern ... vs Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, ... on 27 January, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-northern-vs-industrial-tribunal-rajasthan-on-27-january-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1967-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-30T23:49:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"32 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-northern-vs-industrial-tribunal-rajasthan-on-27-january-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-northern-vs-industrial-tribunal-rajasthan-on-27-january-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Management Of Northern … vs Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, … on 27 January, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-30T23:49:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-northern-vs-industrial-tribunal-rajasthan-on-27-january-1967\"},\"wordCount\":5631,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-northern-vs-industrial-tribunal-rajasthan-on-27-january-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-northern-vs-industrial-tribunal-rajasthan-on-27-january-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-northern-vs-industrial-tribunal-rajasthan-on-27-january-1967\",\"name\":\"Management Of Northern ... vs Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, ... on 27 January, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-30T23:49:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-northern-vs-industrial-tribunal-rajasthan-on-27-january-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-northern-vs-industrial-tribunal-rajasthan-on-27-january-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-northern-vs-industrial-tribunal-rajasthan-on-27-january-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Management Of Northern … vs Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, … on 27 January, 1967\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Management Of Northern ... vs Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, ... on 27 January, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-northern-vs-industrial-tribunal-rajasthan-on-27-january-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Management Of Northern ... vs Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, ... on 27 January, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-northern-vs-industrial-tribunal-rajasthan-on-27-january-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-30T23:49:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"32 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-northern-vs-industrial-tribunal-rajasthan-on-27-january-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-northern-vs-industrial-tribunal-rajasthan-on-27-january-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Management Of Northern … vs Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, … on 27 January, 1967","datePublished":"1967-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-30T23:49:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-northern-vs-industrial-tribunal-rajasthan-on-27-january-1967"},"wordCount":5631,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-northern-vs-industrial-tribunal-rajasthan-on-27-january-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-northern-vs-industrial-tribunal-rajasthan-on-27-january-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-northern-vs-industrial-tribunal-rajasthan-on-27-january-1967","name":"Management Of Northern ... vs Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, ... on 27 January, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-30T23:49:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-northern-vs-industrial-tribunal-rajasthan-on-27-january-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-northern-vs-industrial-tribunal-rajasthan-on-27-january-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-northern-vs-industrial-tribunal-rajasthan-on-27-january-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Management Of Northern … vs Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, … on 27 January, 1967"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108305","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=108305"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108305\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=108305"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=108305"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=108305"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}