{"id":124918,"date":"1965-11-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1965-11-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jahiruddin-vs-k-d-ratmi-factory-manager-the-on-22-november-1965"},"modified":"2016-12-23T18:21:57","modified_gmt":"2016-12-23T12:51:57","slug":"jahiruddin-vs-k-d-ratmi-factory-manager-the-on-22-november-1965","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jahiruddin-vs-k-d-ratmi-factory-manager-the-on-22-november-1965","title":{"rendered":"Jahiruddin vs K.D. Ratmi, Factory Manager, The … on 22 November, 1965"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Jahiruddin vs K.D. Ratmi, Factory Manager, The … on 22 November, 1965<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 907, \t\t 1966 SCR (2) 660<\/div>\n
Author: P Satyanarayanaraju<\/div>\n
Bench: Satyanarayanaraju, P.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nJAHIRUDDIN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nK.D. RATMI, FACTORY MANAGER, THE MODEL MILLS NAGPUR LTD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n22\/11\/1965\n\nBENCH:\nSATYANARAYANARAJU, P.\nBENCH:\nSATYANARAYANARAJU, P.\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nRAMASWAMI, V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR  907\t\t  1966 SCR  (2) 660\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1973 SC1227\t (55)\n F\t    1975 SC2025\t (6)\n\n\nACT:\n    Central   Province\t and   Berar   Industrial   Disputes\nSettlement  Act,  1947 (Act 23 of  1947),  s.  16--Dismissal\nwithin\t exemption   in\t force--Withdrawal   of\t  exemption-\nApplication  to\t Labour Commissioner  for  reinstatement--If\nlies.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t State of Bombay by a notification under the  Bombay\nRelief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act 1958 declared a\nMill  a\t 'relief  undertaking'\tand  exempted  it  from\t the\napplicability  of  s. 16 of the C.P.  and  Berar  Industrial\nDispute&  Settlement-Act,  1947.   During  the\tperiod\t the\nexemption was in force, the appellants-employees of the Mill\nabstained  from\t work  and were\t dismissed  for\t joining  an\nillegal\t strike.  After the exemption was withdrawn and\t was\nno  longer  in operation, the employees\t filed\tapplications\nbefore\tthe Labour Commissioner claiming reinstatement\twith\nback   wages.\t The   Labour\tCommissioner   allowed\t the\napplications.\t The   Mill  preferred\trevisions   to\t the\nIndustrial  Court  which were allowed.\t In  writ  petitions\nfiled by the employees, the High Court confirmed the finding\nof the Industrial Court, that the employees had no right  to\nfile applications under s. 16 and the applications filed  by\nthem  before the Labour Commissioner were not  maintainable.\nIn appeal to this Court.\n     HELD : The High Court was in error in holding that\t the\napplications were not maintainable.\n     The  right of an employee to claim reinstatement  on  a\nwrongful  dismissal  existed de hors s. 16  of\tthe  Central\nProvinces  and\tBerar Industrial  Disputes  Settlement\tAct.\nSection\t 16  provides a forum for a  dismissed\temployee  to\nclaim reinstatement but does not create a right.  The effect\nof an exemption granted by the notification issued under the\nBombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, is\t not\nto destroy the right but to suspend the remedy prescribed by\ns.  16 for enforcing that right during the period  when\t the\nexemption remains in force.  The right can be enforced by  a\ndismissed  employee by restoring to the provisions of s.  16\nof  the\t Act provided he makes the  application\t within\t six\nmonths from the date of his dismissal. [668 E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 156  of
\n1965.\n<\/p>\n
      Appeal  by special leave from the judgment  and  order
\ndated  August  12,  1963 of the Bombay\tHigh  Court  (Nagpur
\nBench) in Special Civil Application No. 315 of 1962.\n<\/p>\n
       V. P.   Sathe   and  A.\tG.  Ratnaparkhi,   for\t the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
661<\/span><\/p>\n
     M.\t N.  Phadke,  J.  B.  Dadachanji,  O.C.\t Mathur\t and
\nRavinder Narain, for respondents Nos.  1 and 3.\n<\/p>\n
     N.\t S.  Bindra and B. R. G. K.  Achar,  for  respondent
\nNo.4.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     Satyanarayana  Raju, J. This is an appeal,\t by  Special
\nLeave,,\t against  the judgment of a Division  Bench  of\t the
\nBombay High Court dismissing an application for the issue of
\na  Writ of certiorari under Art. 226 of the Constitution  to
\nquash the order of the State Industrial Court at Nagpur.\n<\/p>\n
      For  a proper appreciation of the questions that\thave
\nbeen  raised in the appeal, it would be necessary  to  state
\nthe  material facts.  The Model Mills,\tNagpur\t(hereinafter
\nreferred  to  as  the Mills) is\t a  public  limited  company
\nincorporated  under the Indian Companies Act.  On  July\t 18,
\n1959, in exercise of the powers conferred by s. 18-A of\t the
\nIndustries  (Development  and  Regulation)  Act,  1951,\t the
\nCentral Government took over the management of the Mills and
\nappointed the 3rd respondent as the authorised Controller of
\nthe  Mills.  On March 25, 1960 the State of Bombay (now\t the
\nState  of Maharashtra), in exercise of the powers  conferred
\nby  ss. 3 and 4 of the Bombay Relief  Undertakings  (Special
\nProvisions) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay
\nAct)  made  a  notification declaring the Mills to  be\ta  ‘
\n“relief\t undertaking”  for a period of one  year  commencing
\nfrom  March  26, 1960 and ending with March 25,\t 1961.\t The
\nappellants, eight in number, were, at the relevant time, the
\npermanent employees of the Mills.  It would be convenient to
\nrefer  to them as “employees”.\tOn December 15,\t 1960,\twhen
\nthe  notification  made by the State  Government  under\t the
\nBombay Act was in force, the employees abstained from  work.
\nThereupon, the 1st respondent who is the Factory Manager  of
\nthe Mills issued notices to the employees to show cause\t why
\nthey  should  not be dismissed from service for\t joining  an
\n“illegal  strike”.  On January 6, 1961 the  Factory  Manager
\npassed\torders\tdismissing the employees from  service.\t  On
\nJanuary\t 12, 1961 the employees filed an application in\t the
\nHigh  Court  of Bombay for the issue of a writ\tof  mandamus
\ndirecting  the\temployees to be reinstated in  service.\t  On
\nApril  4,  1961,  the  exemption  of  the  Mills  from\t the
\napplication  of\t s. 16 of the Central  Provinces  and  Berar
\nIndustrial Disputes Settlement Act (XXIII of 1947)  (herein-
\nafter called the State Act) was made.  On April 25, 1961 the
\nemployees   filed   applications   before   the\t   Assistant
\nCommissioner Sup.CI.\/76-12
\n662<\/span>
\nof Labour claiming reinstatement with back wages.  The\tHigh
\nCourt  dismissed  the Writ Petition filed by  the  employees
\nwith  liberty to file a fresh petition, if necessary,  since
\nthey  were  prosecuting\t their applications  for  relief  of
\nreinstatement  before the Assistant Commissioner of  Labour.
\nIn and by his order dated September 29, 1961, the  Assistant
\nCommissioner   allowed\t the  applications  filed   by\t the
\nemployees.  He held that as there was no illegal strike\t the
\norders\tof  dismissal were unsustainable and should  be\t set
\naside.\tHe directed that the employees should be  reinstated
\nwith back wages.  Against the orders passed by the Assistant
\nCommissioner,  the Mills preferred applications in  revision
\nto the State Industrial Court.\tBy its order dated  February
\n16,   1962,  the  Industrial  Court  allowed  the   revision
\napplications  filed  by\t the Mills on the  ground  that\t the
\napplications  before  the Assistant  Commissioner  were\t not
\nmaintainable.\tOn the merits, the Industrial  Court  agreed
\nwith  the Assistant Commissioner that there was\t no  illegal
\nstrike.\t  Aggrieved by the orders of the  Industrial  Court,
\nthe employees filed an applicaton under Arts. 226 and 227 of
\nthe  Constitution for the issue of a writ of  certiorari  to
\nquash the orders of dismissal passed by the Factory  Manager
\nand  to direct their reinstatement with back wages.  By\t its
\njudgment dated August 12, 1963 the High Court dismissed\t the
\nWrit Petition filed by the employees.\n<\/p>\n
     The  High\tCourt  has  held that  the  right  to  claim
\nreinstatement  is  not\ta right which  is  available  to  an
\nemployee  under\t the  Common  Law and  that  the  relief  of
\nreinstatement is a special right which has been conferred on
\nan employee under S. 16 of the State Act.  In the opinion of
\nthe High Court, the essential pre-condition for an  employee
\nto claim relief under S. 16 is that he is an employee in  an
\nindustry to which that section is applicable and in  respect
\nof which a notification under S. 16(1) also has been issued.
\nThe High Court has reached this conclusion by reason of\t the
\nfact  that  the\t State\tGovernment  issued  a\tnotification
\nexempting the Mills from the operation of S. 16 of the State
\nAct  and that the exemption was withdrawn only on  April  4,
\n1961 while the employees were dismissed on January 6,  1961.
\nIn the opinion of the High Court, by reason of the fact that
\ns.  16 of the Act was not applicable, the dismissal  of\t the
\nemployees even if it was wrongful did not give them a  right
\nto claim TV instatement and that to hold otherwise would  be
\nto  give retrospective operation to S. 16 of the  State\t Act
\nwhich  became applicable to the Mills on and from  April  4,
\n1961  by reason of the withdrawal of the exemption.  in\t the
\nresult,\t the High Court confirmed the finding of  the  State
\nIndustrial Court that the employees had
\n663<\/span>
\nno  right to file applications under s. 16 of the State\t Act
\nand  the  applications filed by them  before  the  Assistant
\nCommissioner were not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
     Now  it is contended by Mr. V. Sathe on behalf  of\t the
\nemployees  that\t though\t the industry was  exempt  from\t the
\noperation of certain sections including s. 16 of the Act, on
\nthe  date when the appellants were dismissed, there  was  an
\nexisting industrial dispute relating to an industrial matter
\nbetween\t the employees and the Mills on April 4, 1961,\twhen
\nthe notification withdrawing the exemption in favour of\t the
\nMills  from  the  operation of s. 16 of the  State  Act\t was
\nissued\tby  the\t Government,  that  on\tthe  date  when\t the
\nemployees  filed  an  application under\t s.  16\t before\t the
\nCommissioner of Labour, the period of six months provided by
\nthat  section  had  not\t elapsed  and  that  therefore\t the
\nemployees  could  invoke the provisions of s. 16  and  claim
\nreinstatement.\t The  learned  counsel for  the\t Mills,\t Mr.
\nPhadke, has endeavoured to support the judgment of the\tHigh
\nCourt and the reasons on which its conclusions were rested.\n<\/p>\n
     The  questions  which arise for determination  in\tthis
\nappeal are :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    1.\t Whether  the right of\ta  dismissed
\n\t      employee\t  to   claim\treinstatement,\t  in
\n\t      appropriate  cases, exists. de hors s. 16\t of’
\n\t      the State Act ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    2.\t Whether  by  reason  of  the  State
\n\t      Government’s  exemption of the  industry\tfrom
\n\t      the  operation of s. 16 on the date  when\t the
\n\t      employees\t were dismissed from service,  their
\n\t      right  to\t apply for reinstatement  ceased  to
\n\t      exist ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
For  a\tproper determination of the above questions,  it  is
\nnecessary  to  refer to the material  statutory\t provisions.
\nThe  State  Act became law on June 2, 1947.  S.\t 15  of\t the
\nState  Act  empowers  the State Government  to\tappoint\t any
\nperson\tas  Labour Commissioner for the State and  he  shall
\nexercise   all\t or  any  of  the  powers  of\tthe   Labour
\nCommissioner.  Now s. 16 of the State Act as it stood at the
\nrelevant date provides as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      \"(1)    Where   the   State   Government\t  by\n\t      notification    so   directs,    the    Labour\n<\/pre>\n
\t      Commissioner  shall  have power to  decide  an
\n\t      industrial  dispute  touching  the  dismissal,
\n\t      discharge,   removal  or\tsuspension   of\t  an
\n\t      employee working in any industry in general or
\n\t      in  any local area as may be specified in\t the
\n\t      notification.\n<\/p>\n
664<\/span><\/p>\n
.lm15
\n(2)  Any  employee,  working in an  industry  to  which\t the
\nnotification under sub-section (1) applies, may, within\t six
\nmonths\tfrom the date of such dismissal, discharge,  removal
\nor   suspension,  apply\t to  the  Labour  Commissioner\t for
\nreinstatement and payment of compensation for loss of wages.
\n    The\t different  powers that could be  exercised  by\t the
\nLabour\tCommissioner  are then set out in sub-s. (3)  :\t “On
\nreceipt\t of  such application, if the  Labour  Commissioner,
\nafter  such  enquiry as may be prescribed,  finds  that\t the
\ndismissal …. was in contravention of any of the provisions
\nof  this Act or in contravention of a standing order….  he
\nmay  direct that the employee shall be reinstated  forthwith
\nor  by a specified date and paid for the whole\tperiod\tfrom
\nthe  date of dismissal …. to the date of the order of\t the
\nLabour Commissioner”.\n<\/p>\n
    It is common ground that s. 16 is made applicable to the
\ntextile\t industry  with\t effect from.  March 1,\t 1951  by  a
\nnotification dated February 22, 1951.  The provisions of  s.
\n16 were thus applicable to the Mills till March 25, 1960, on
\nwhich\tdate,  however,\t the  State  Government\t  issued   a
\nnotification in exercise of the powers conferred under ss. 3
\nand 4 of the Bombay Act declaring the Mills to be a  ‘relief
\nundertaking’.  The notification directed that the provisions
\nof S. 16 of the State Act and Chapter V-A of the  Industrial
\nDisputes Act (XIV of 1947) (Lay-off and Retrenchment)  shall
\nnot  apply  to\tthe  Mills  and\t that  it  shall  be  exempt
\ntherefrom.   This  notification was extended  by  the  State
\nGovernment  on\tMarch 8, 1961 for a further  period  of\t one
\nyear.  A subsequent notification dated April 4, 1961  issued
\nby  the State of Bombay amended the earlier notification  by
\nwithdrawing  the exemption in so far as it related to s.  16
\nof the State Act.\n<\/p>\n
    The alleged participation by the employees in an illegal
\nstrike occurred on December 15, 1960 and the 1st  respondent
\ndismissed the employees in and by his order dated January 6,
\n1961.\tIt was during the period between March 25, 1960\t and
\nApril  4,  1961\t when the exemption was in  force  that\t the
\nincident  which\t resulted  in the  Mills  framing  a  charge
\nagainst the employees happened and the subsequent orders  of
\ndismissal were passed.\n<\/p>\n
     It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the
\nMills  that the right of an employee to claim  reinstatement
\nhas  been  granted by s. 16 of the State Act and  since\t the
\nMills were exempt
\n665<\/span>
\nfrom  the provisions of that section on the  material  dates
\nthe  employee  had  no right to\t claim\treinstatement.\t The
\nIndustrial  Disputes  Act (XIV of 1947) came into  force  on
\nApril  1,  1947.   For\tour  present  purposes,\t it  is\t not
\nnecessary   to\t consider  whether  the\t  right\t  to   claim
\nreinstatement  by  a dismissed employee existed\t before\t the
\nCentral Act became law.\t The question about the jurisdiction
\nof  an\tIndustrial  Tribunal to direct\treinstatement  of  a
\ndismissed  employee was raised as early as 1949, before\t the
\nFederal\t Court\tin Western India Automobile  Association  v.
\nIndustrial  Tribunal, Bombay(1).  In that case, the  Federal
\nCourt  considered  the larger question about the  powers  of
\nindustrial  tribunals  in all its aspects and  rejected\t the
\nargument  of the employer that to invest the  tribunal\twith
\njurisdiction  to  order reinstatement amounts to  giving  it
\nauthority to make a contract between two persons when one of
\nthem is unwilling to enter into a contract of employment  at
\nall.   This argument, it was observed, “overlooks  the\tfact
\nthat when a dispute arises about the employment of a  person
\nat the instance of a trade union or a trade union objects to
\nthe  employment\t of  a certain\tperson,\t the  definition  of
\nindustrial dispute would cover both those cases.  In each of
\nthose cases, although the employer may be unwilling to,\t do,
\nthere  will  be jurisdiction in the tribunal to\t direct\t the
\nemployment or non-employment of the person by the employer”.
\nThe Federal Court also added
\n\t\t  “The\tdisputes  of  this  character  being
\n\t      covered  by the definition of  the  expression
\n\t      ‘industrial   disputes’,\tthere\tappears\t  no
\n\t      logical  ground to exclude an award  of  rein-
\n\t      statement\t  from\tthe  jurisdiction   of\t the
\n\t      Industrial Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
For nearly two decades the decision of the Federal Court has
\nbeen  accepted\twithout\t question.   Therefore,\t after\t the
\nIndustrial  Disputes Act, 1947, at any rate, the right of  a
\ndismissed  employee to claim reinstatement in  proper  cases
\nhas  been  recognised.\tIt is no doubt true that  under\t the
\nCentral\t Act  the  right to claim reinstatement\t has  to  be
\nenforced  in the manner laid down by that  statute,  whereas
\nunder  the  State  Act it is open to an\t employee  to  claim
\nreinstatement  without the intervention of  the\t appropriate
\nGovernment.  This would not however make any difference.
\n   It  is argued that by reason of the exemption granted  by
\nthe  Bombay State when it declared the Mills to be a  relief
\nundertaking,  rights  and obligations which accrued  to\t the
\nemployees or were incurred by the Mills during the period of
\nexemption, stood
\n(1) [1949] F.C.R. 321.\n<\/p>\n
666<\/span><\/p>\n
abrogated.   This takes us to the question as to  the  legal
\neffect\tof  ‘the exemption granted by the State\t of  Bombay.
\nThe  notification  issued by the State of Bombay is  in\t the
\nfollowing terms :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  “The\tGovernment of Bombay hereby  directs
\n\t      that   in\t  relation  to\t the   said   relief
\n\t      undertaking and in respect of the said  period
\n\t      of one year for which that relief\t undertaking
\n\t      continues\t as  such,  the\t provisions  of\t (i)
\n\t      Sections 16, 31 and 37, section 40 (in so\t far
\n\t      as it relates to lock-out) and section 51\t and
\n\t      section 61 [in so far as it relates to clauses\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)  and\t(c)  of\t Rule  36  of  the   Central
\n\t      Provinces\t  and  Berar   Industrial   Disputes
\n\t      Settlement Rules, 1949] Central Provinces\t and
\n\t      Berar  Act No. XXIII of 1947 and (ii)  Chapter
\n\t      V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947\t(XIV
\n\t      of  1947) shall not apply and the said  relief
\n\t      undertaking shall be exempt from the aforesaid
\n\t      provisions of the Central Provinces and  Berar
\n\t      Industrial   Disputes  Settlement\t Act,\t1947
\n\t      (Central Provinces and Berar Act No. XXIII  of
\n\t      1947)  and the Industrial Disputes  Act,\t1947
\n\t      (XIV of 1947).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
   The\tcontention urged on behalf of the Mills proceeds  on
\nthe  assumption\t that the right to claim  reinstatement\t has
\nbeen granted by S. 16 of the State Act.\t As we have  already
\nstated,\t S.  16\t only recognises the right  of\ta  dismissed
\nemployee,  in appropriate cases, to claim reinstatement\t but
\ndoes  not  confer  the\tright.\t The  section  provides\t the
\nprocedure for enforcing the right.  In this view, the  right
\nof  the\t dismissed employee to claim  reinstatement  was  in
\nexistence  even during the period of exemption, but only  it
\ncould  not be enforced under S. 16.  Once the  exemption  is
\nwithdrawn the status quo ante is restored and it is open  to
\nthe  employee  to  file\t an  application  for  reinstatement
\nprovided,  however, his application is within the period  of
\nsix months from the date of his dismissal.\n<\/p>\n
    Under  S. 4 ( 1 )(a), on a notification being made,\t the
\nindustry   becomes  a  relief  undertaking  and\t  the\tlaws
\nenumerated  in\tthe  Schedule to the Bombay  Act  shall\t not
\napply.\tThe Schedule specifies Chapter V-A of the Industrial
\nDisputes Act and S. 16 of the State Act.  Section 4 ( 1 )(a)\n<\/p>\n
(i)  also  provides  that the relief  undertaking  shall  be
\nexempt\tfrom  the  operation of the Acts  mentioned  in\t the
\nSchedule.\n<\/p>\n
    Learned   counsel\tdrew  a\t distinction   between\t the
\nexpressions exemption’ and ‘suspension’ by relying upon\t the
\nmeanings  given\t to these words in  the\t Oxford\t Dictionary.
\n‘Exempton’ means
\n667<\/span>
\n‘immunity  from a liability’ whereas the  word\t‘suspension’
\nmeans  ‘put  it\t off’.\tBasing\thimself\t on  the  dictionary
\nmeanings,  learned counsel for the Mills has contended\tthat
\nthe  word  ‘exemption’\tis  of\ta  wider  connotation\tthan
\n‘suspension’  and  means that the industry shall  be  immune
\nfrom the liabilities arising under the statutes specified in
\nthe  Schedule  and that the order of dismissal\thaving\tbeen
\npassed\twhile  the exemption was in force,  the\t Mills\twere
\nimmune\tfrom liability to reinstate the employees  on  their
\ndismissal being held to be wrongful.\n<\/p>\n
    The order dismissing the employees was passed on January
\n6,  1961 when the notification was in force.  The  employees
\nfiled  applications  before the Commissioner  of  Labour  on
\nApril  25,  1961.  On the date of  their  applications,\t the
\nexemption  granted to the Mills by the State Government\t was
\nno  longer  in operation.  The decision in  Birla  Brothers,
\nLtd.  v. Modak(1) has firmly established the principle\tthat
\nfor  a\tdispute\t which\toriginated  before  the\t  Industrial
\nDisputes  Act  came into force but was in existence  on\t the
\ndate  when  that  Act became law, the  Act  applied  to\t the
\ndispute\t since\tit was in existence and continuing  on\tthat
\ndate  and no question of giving retrospective effect to\t the
\nAct arose.  At p. 22 1, the learned Chief Justice,  Harries,
\nwho spoke for the Court stated thus :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  “In  my judgment, the Act of 1947  clearly
\n\t      applies  to  the present dispute\twithout\t any
\n\t      question\t arising  of  giving  the  Act\t any
\n\t      retrospective effect.  It is true the  dispute
\n\t      arose before the Act was passed, but on  April
\n\t      1,  1947,\t when the Act came into\t force,\t the
\n\t      dispute was in existence and continuing.\t The
\n\t      employees\t were  on  strike  and\tthe   strike
\n\t      actually continued until May 19, that is, five
\n\t      days  after  the\tGovernment  made  the  order
\n\t      referring\t the dispute to arbitration.  In  my
\n\t      judgment,\t the Act must apply to\tany  dispute
\n\t      existing\tafter it came into force, no  matter
\n\t      when that dispute commenced.  There is nothing
\n\t      in  the  Act to suggest that it  should  apply
\n\t      only  to disputes which originated  after\t the
\n\t      passing of the  Act.   On\t the  contrary,\t the
\n\t      opening words of s.10 of the Act make it clear
\n\t      that the Act would apply to    all    disputes
\n\t      existing when it came into force.\t The opening
\n\t      words of s. 10(1) are—<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    If any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended,\t the
\nappropriate Goverment may, by order in writing etc.
\n(1)  L.L.R. [1948] 2 Cal. 209.\n<\/p>\n
668<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      It  seems\t to  me that  these  words  make  it
\n\t      abundantly  clear that the Act applies to\t any
\n\t      industrial dispute existing when it came\tinto
\n\t      force and, therefore, the Act applies to\tthis
\n\t      dispute.”\n<\/p>\n
It  is\targued by Mr. Phadke that  the,\t notification  dated
\nApril 4, 1961 withdrawing the exemption is only\t prospective
\nand  no\t retrospective\teffect can be  given  to  it.\tThis
\nargument proceeds on a fallacy.\t There is no question of the
\nnotification  withdrawing an exemption being prospective  or
\nretrospective.\n<\/p>\n
    It is finally submitted by learned counsel for the Mills
\nthat the validity of the order passed by the Factory Manager
\ndismissing   the  employees  from  service  has\t  not\tbeen
\ndetermined  by\tthe High Court and that the matter  must  be
\nremitted to that Court for a consideration of that question.
\nWe  may point out that the Assistant Commissioner of  Labour
\nhas held that the dismissal is wrongful.  This conclusion is
\naffirmed  by  the  Industrial Court.  The  validity  of\t the
\ndismissal  was therefore finally concluded in favour of\t the
\nemployees.   There is therefore no question of the  validity
\nof  the\t dismissal order now being considered  by  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
     We may now summarise the conclusions reached by us as a
\nresult of the above discussion.\t The right of an employee to
\nclaim  reinstatement on a wrongful dismissal exists de\thors
\ns.  16 of the State Act.  Section 16 provides a forum for  a
\ndismissed  employee  to\t claim reinstatement  but  does\t not
\ncreate\ta right.  The effect of an exemption granted by\t the
\nnotification  issued under the Bombay Act is not to  destroy
\nthe right but to suspend the remedy prescribed by s. 16\t for
\nenforcing  that right during the period when  the  exemption
\nremains in force.  The right can be enforced by a  dismissed
\nemployee by resorting to the provisions of s. 16 of the\t Act
\nprovided he makes the application within six months from the
\ndate of his dismissal.\tIn the present case, the  appellants
\nfiled  their applications within the period specified in  S.
\n16 of the State Act.  The High Court was in error in holding
\nthat the applications were not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t the result the judgment of the High Court  and\t the
\norder  of the Industrial Court are set aside and  the  award
\nmade  by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour  is  restored.
\nThe  appeal  is allowed and the appellants will\t have  their
\ncosts in this Court paid by respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t      Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
669<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Jahiruddin vs K.D. Ratmi, Factory Manager, The … on 22 November, 1965 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 907, 1966 SCR (2) 660 Author: P Satyanarayanaraju Bench: Satyanarayanaraju, P. PETITIONER: JAHIRUDDIN Vs. RESPONDENT: K.D. RATMI, FACTORY MANAGER, THE MODEL MILLS NAGPUR LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/11\/1965 BENCH: SATYANARAYANARAJU, P. BENCH: SATYANARAYANARAJU, P. GAJENDRAGADKAR, […]<\/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-124918","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nJahiruddin vs K.D. Ratmi, Factory Manager, The ... on 22 November, 1965 - 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\/jahiruddin-vs-k-d-ratmi-factory-manager-the-on-22-november-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jahiruddin vs K.D. Ratmi, Factory Manager, The ... on 22 November, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jahiruddin-vs-k-d-ratmi-factory-manager-the-on-22-november-1965\" \/>\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=\"1965-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-23T12:51:57+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jahiruddin-vs-k-d-ratmi-factory-manager-the-on-22-november-1965#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jahiruddin-vs-k-d-ratmi-factory-manager-the-on-22-november-1965\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jahiruddin vs K.D. Ratmi, Factory Manager, The … on 22 November, 1965\",\"datePublished\":\"1965-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-23T12:51:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jahiruddin-vs-k-d-ratmi-factory-manager-the-on-22-november-1965\"},\"wordCount\":3258,\"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\\\/jahiruddin-vs-k-d-ratmi-factory-manager-the-on-22-november-1965#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jahiruddin-vs-k-d-ratmi-factory-manager-the-on-22-november-1965\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jahiruddin-vs-k-d-ratmi-factory-manager-the-on-22-november-1965\",\"name\":\"Jahiruddin vs K.D. Ratmi, Factory Manager, The ... on 22 November, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1965-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-23T12:51:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jahiruddin-vs-k-d-ratmi-factory-manager-the-on-22-november-1965#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jahiruddin-vs-k-d-ratmi-factory-manager-the-on-22-november-1965\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jahiruddin-vs-k-d-ratmi-factory-manager-the-on-22-november-1965#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jahiruddin vs K.D. Ratmi, Factory Manager, The … on 22 November, 1965\"}]},{\"@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":"Jahiruddin vs K.D. Ratmi, Factory Manager, The ... on 22 November, 1965 - 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\/jahiruddin-vs-k-d-ratmi-factory-manager-the-on-22-november-1965","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jahiruddin vs K.D. Ratmi, Factory Manager, The ... on 22 November, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jahiruddin-vs-k-d-ratmi-factory-manager-the-on-22-november-1965","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1965-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-23T12:51:57+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jahiruddin-vs-k-d-ratmi-factory-manager-the-on-22-november-1965#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jahiruddin-vs-k-d-ratmi-factory-manager-the-on-22-november-1965"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jahiruddin vs K.D. Ratmi, Factory Manager, The … on 22 November, 1965","datePublished":"1965-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-23T12:51:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jahiruddin-vs-k-d-ratmi-factory-manager-the-on-22-november-1965"},"wordCount":3258,"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\/jahiruddin-vs-k-d-ratmi-factory-manager-the-on-22-november-1965#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jahiruddin-vs-k-d-ratmi-factory-manager-the-on-22-november-1965","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jahiruddin-vs-k-d-ratmi-factory-manager-the-on-22-november-1965","name":"Jahiruddin vs K.D. Ratmi, Factory Manager, The ... on 22 November, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1965-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-23T12:51:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jahiruddin-vs-k-d-ratmi-factory-manager-the-on-22-november-1965#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jahiruddin-vs-k-d-ratmi-factory-manager-the-on-22-november-1965"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jahiruddin-vs-k-d-ratmi-factory-manager-the-on-22-november-1965#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jahiruddin vs K.D. Ratmi, Factory Manager, The … on 22 November, 1965"}]},{"@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\/124918","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=124918"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124918\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124918"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124918"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124918"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}