{"id":130079,"date":"1968-08-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1968-08-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-e-c-p-ltd-naini-allahabad-vs-the-labour-court-allahabad-on-5-august-1968"},"modified":"2018-10-03T20:59:17","modified_gmt":"2018-10-03T15:29:17","slug":"g-e-c-p-ltd-naini-allahabad-vs-the-labour-court-allahabad-on-5-august-1968","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-e-c-p-ltd-naini-allahabad-vs-the-labour-court-allahabad-on-5-august-1968","title":{"rendered":"G.E.C. (P) Ltd. Naini, Allahabad vs The Labour Court, Allahabad on 5 August, 1968"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
G.E.C. (P) Ltd. Naini, Allahabad vs The Labour Court, Allahabad on 5 August, 1968<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 235, \t\t 1969 SCR (1) 543<\/div>\n
Author: C Vaidyialingam<\/div>\n
Bench: Vaidyialingam, C.A.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nG.E.C. (P) LTD. NAINI, ALLAHABAD\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE LABOUR COURT, ALLAHABAD\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n05\/08\/1968\n\nBENCH:\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\nBENCH:\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\nSHELAT, J.M.\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\n\nCITATION:\n 1969 AIR  235\t\t  1969 SCR  (1) 543\n\n\nACT:\nMisconduct--Illegal  strike--Dismissal of workmen   who\t had\nbeen  given  warning about an earlier  strike--Warning\theld\nwrongly\t  given-Punishment  after taking into  account\tsuch\nwarning cannot be upheld.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    There was a strike in the establishment of the appellant\ncompany\t  betseen  18th and 30th March, 1964,  and  again  a\ntoken  strike  on 10th April, 1964.  For the  misconduct  of\ngoing  on the first strike some of the workmen were  charged\nand  given  a  warning.\t The second strike was\theld  to  be\nillegal by an enquiry officer and six of the workmen who had\nbeen  given  a warning in respect of the first\tstrike\twere\ndismissed  for taking part in the second strike\t also.\t The\nLabour Court held that in the compromise that had ended\t the\nfirst  strike the company had given the undertaking that  it\nwould  not take any action by way of punishment against\t the\nworkmen,  and therefore the warning in respect of the  first\nstrike\twhich  was  given  only\t after\tthe  enquiry  report\nrelating to the second strike had been already received, was\nnot  only not bona fide but illegal.  Because  this  warning\nwas  taken  into account against the six  workmen  who\twere\ndismissed,   the  Labour  Court\t set  aside  the  order\t  of\ndismissal,  although  holding  that the\t second\t strike\t was\nille.gal  because of want of notice under subs. 4 of s.\t 6-S\nof  the\t U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,\t1947.\tThe  company\nappealed to this Court.\n    HELD:   (i) The Labour Court rightly held on  the  facts\nthat  the  warning given to the workmen in respect  of\tthe.\nfirst  strike was not only not bona fide but  also.  against\nthe  terms of the settlement by which the first\t strike\t was\nended. [548 G]\n    (ii) The second strike was, as held by the Labour Court,\nillegal and therefore 'misconduct' under sub-cl. (2) of\t cl.\n21  of the Standing Orders of the company.   Any  punishment\nimposed\t under\tel. 22 of the said Orders in respect  of  an\nillegal\t strike\t after a fair enquiry,\tbeing  a  managerial\nfunction would not normally be interfered with.\t But in\t the\npresent\t case the management was not entitled to take  into.\naccount the warning given in respect of the first strike  in\nview of the settlement it had entered into with the  workers\nto  end that strike.  The Labour Court was  therefore  again\nright  in  holding the punishment of dismissal\tof  the\t six\nrespondents as vindictive and unjustified. [548 H-549E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Civil Appeal No. 958 of 1966.
\n    Appeal  by special leave from the Award dated  September
\n16, 1965 of the Labour Court, Allahabad in Adjudication Case
\nNo. 78 of 1965.\n<\/p>\n
    G.R.  Gokhale, O.P. Malhotra and 1. B.  Dadachanji,\t for
\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    R. Vasudev Pillai and Subodh Markandeya, for respondents
\nNos. 2(a) to 2(k).\n<\/p>\n
541<\/span><\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    Vaidialingam, J.  In this appeal, by special leave,\t the
\nquestion,  that arises for consideration, is as\t to  whether
\nthe  award of the Labour Court, Allahabad,  dated  September
\n16,  1965,  directing  the  reinstatement  of  six  workmen,
\nreferred to in the order of reference, is justified.
\n    The\t facts leading up to the award may be  referred\t to.
\nThere  was a strike, in the establishment of  the  appellant
\ncompany,  from March 18, 1964.\tThere was a meeting, of\t the
\nDistrict  Industrial Relations Advisory Committee, on  March
\n29,  1964, presided over by the District Magistrate  of\t the
\narea.  Representatives\tof  the management and the  workmen,
\nattended the said meeting.   The proceedings of the  meeting
\nshow that  the Advisory Committee, decided to appeal to\t the
\nappellant  not to take any action, against the\tworkers,  on
\nthe  gro.und  that they had on strike, from March  18  1964.
\nThere was an appeal, to the District Magistrate,  Allahabad,
\nto release, as a gesture of goodwill, the arrested employees
\nof  the\t company, who were not involved\t in  violence.\t The
\nUnion,\trepresenting the workers of the appellant, in  turn,
\ndecided\t to call off the strike and directed the workmen  to
\nresume work with effect from the morning of March 30,  1964.
\nThere is no controversy that the strike was called off,\t and
\ncertain workers,  who  had  been arrested in connection with
\nthe  strike,  were also released  from ia’il, on  March\t 29,
\n1964 itself.  This strike will be referred to, as the  first
\nstrike, in the course of this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
    On March 20, 1964, the respondent-Union had given to the
\nappellant,  another notice, stating that the workmen of\t the
\nappellant company would be going on a token strike, for\t one
\nday,  after fourteen days of the receipt of the\t notice,  in
\nsympathy  with\tthe workers of the  Swadeshi  Cotton  Mills,
\nNalni.\t The  exact date, on which the strike  was  to\ttake
\nplace, was not given in the notice, as required under sub-s.
\n(4)  of\t s.  6S of the U.P. Industrial\tDisputes  Act,\t1947
\n(hereinafter referred to as the Act).  On April 9, 1964, the
\nrespondent Union again intimated to the management about the
\nworkmen’s  intention to go on strike on April 10, 1964,\t and
\noffered to work on a Sunday, so that there would be no\tloss
\nof  production; but the management intimated the Union\tthat
\nthe  factory would work on April 10, 1964.  A  token  strike
\nactually took place, on April 10, 1964.\t This strike will be
\ntermed as the second strike, in these proceedings.
\n    In\trespect of the first strike, the Management had,  on
\nMarch  28,  1964, charge-sheeted, for going  on\t an  illegal
\nstrike,\t some of the workmen, including the  workmen,  whose
\ndismissal had been set aside by the present award.  A  joint
\nreply was sent, by the concerned workmen, on April 9,  1964,
\nto  the management, drawing their attention to the  decision
\nof the District Industrial Rela-\n<\/p>\n
545<\/span><\/p>\n
tions  Advisory\t Committee, dated March 29,  1964,  and\t the
\nsettlement, arrived at, therein, between the management\t and
\nthe  Union. The workmen also requested the  management,\t not
\n‘to  disobey the decision of the Committee.   The  appellant
\nsent  a\t communication, on April 10, 1964, to  the  workmen,
\nstating\t that  they  had not made  any\tcommitment,  at\t the
\nmeeting on March 29, 1964,  that  the management  would\t not
\nproceed\t with the taking of disciplinarY action, against  an
\nemployee,  who\tcommitted  a  mis-conduct, according to\t the
\nStanding.  Orders of the Company.  The work-men\t were  again
\ndirected  to furnish, within 24 hours, their reply, if\tany,
\nto the charge-sheet, dated March 28, 1964.
\n  On May 8, 1964, the Acting Works Manager, of the appellant
\ncompany, passed orders, warning the concerned  workmen,\t for
\nhaving\t mis-conducted\t themselves,   as  s’tated  in\t the
\nchargesheet, dated March 28, 1964.  It is further stated, in
\nthis  order, that, after hearing the explanation,  furnished
\nby the workmen,\t the management holds the workmen guilty  of
\nmis-conduct,  for which they could have been dismissed;\t but
\nthe management has taken a lenient view and, hoping that the
\nmis-conduct  will  not be repeated, administers\t an  earnest
\nwarning.\n<\/p>\n
  In respect of the second strike, which took place on April
\n10,1964,  the management charge-sheeted, on April 16,  1964,
\nthirteen  wo.rkmen, for going on illegal strike which  is  a
\nmis-conduct,  under sub-cl. (2) of el. 21, of the  Certified
\nStanding  Orders  of the company, and as the strike  was  in
\nviolation  of sub-s. (4) of s. 6-S of the Act.\tThere was  a
\nfurther charge that the workmen, concerned, had\t intimidated
\nand  prevented\tother willing workers, from going  to  work.
\nThe workmen were directed to offer their explanation, as  to
\nwhy disciplinary action need not be taken for their conduct.
\nOn  April   17, 1964, the thirteen workmen, jointly  sent  a
\nreply saying that the strike, on April 10, 1964, was  legal,
\nand due notice had been given, under the provisions  of\t the
\nAct.   They  also denied having intimidated, or\t restrained,
\nany willing worker from going to work.\tThey further  stated
\nthat they had not committed any mis-conduct.  The management
\nproceeded   to\tconduct\t an inquiry,  against  the  thirteen
\nworkmen,  and Sri K. ‘D. Gupta, an officer of  the  company,
\nwas  entrusted with the conduct of the said  inquirY.\tShri
\nGupta  accordingly conducted an enquirY on April  20,  1964,
\nand  sent his report to the Acting Works Manager, .on  April
\n24,  1964.  After referring to the conduct  of\tthe  inquiry
\nproceedings, Shri Gupta has stated that the thirteen workmen
\nare’ guilty of participation in an illegal strike, on  April
\n10,  1964, and, as participation in an illegal strike, is  a
\nmis-conduct   under   el. 21 (2 ) of the  Certfied  Standing
\nOrders\tof the Company, the workmen, concerned, are  guilty.
\nof mis-conduct,\t but,  regarding the
\n546<\/span>
\ncharge\tof intimidation and incitement, the inquiry  officer
\nfound that the said charge was not established.
\n    On\tMay  22,  1964,\t the Acting  Works  Manager  of\t the
\nappellant  accepted  the  report of Shri  Gupta\t and  passed
\norders,\t administering\ta  warning, to\tseven,\tout  of\t the
\nthirteen, workmen, but, regarding the remaining six workmen,
\nthe  Works  Manager, after taking into account\tthe  warning
\nthat  had been\tadministered  to them, on May 8,  1964,\t for
\ngo.ing on an illegal strike (referring to the first strike),
\npassed orders dismissing them from service.
\n    The\t Union raised a dispute, regarding the dismissal  of
\nthe  six  workmen  and, accordingly, the  said\tdispute\t was
\nreferred to the Labour Court, Allahabad, for adjudication.
\n    The\t case of the workmen was that the strike,  on  April
\n10,  1964,  was\t legal,\t and  that  the\t domestic   inquiry,
\nconducted  by Shri Gupta, was neither bona fide,  not  fair.
\nThey also contended that in view of the settlement,  arrived
\nat  on March 29, 1964, in respect of the first\tstrike,\t the
\nmanagement  had\t no  right to take any\taction,\t by  way  of
\nwarning the workmen, as it purported to do, on May 8,  1964.
\nTaking\tthe said warning into account,\tfor  the purpose  of
\nimposing   the\tpunishment  of\tdismissal,  amounted  to   a
\nvindictive  conduct,  on  the part of  the  management\tand,
\ntherefore, the order of dismissal was illegal.
\n    The\t management, on the other hand, contended  that\t the
\nstrike,\t that took place on April 10, 1964, was illegal,  as
\nit was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act\t and
\nparticipation,\t in such illegal strike, was a\tmis-conduct,
\nunder  el.  21 (2)  of\tthe Standing Orders of\tthe  Company
\nand, such mis-conduct could be punished by dismissal,  under
\ncl.   22.    According\tto  the\t management,   the   inquiry
\nproceedings, conducted by Shri Gupta,  were quite fair,\t and
\nbona  fide, and the workmen were given full  opportunity  to
\nparticipate  in the inquiry proceedings.  They also  pleaded
\nthat  the management was entitled, to impose punishment\t for
\nmis-conduct, by taking into account the previous conduct  of
\nthe  worlcmen, concerned; and, in this case,  the   warning,
\nrecorded  against them on May 8, 1964, was legitimately\t and
\nproperly taken into account, inasmuch as the management\t had
\nnot   agreed  to  withdraw  the\t proceedings,  against\t the
\nworkmen.\n<\/p>\n
The Labour Court has upheld the plea of the management, that
\nthe second strike, on April 10, 1964, being contrary to sub-
\ns.  (4) of s. 6-S, was illegal under s. 6-T of the Act;\t but
\nit  has further held that, notwithstanding the infirmity  in
\nthe  notice,  issued  by the workmen  regarding\t the  second
\nstrike,\t all  the  managements in the  area,  including\t the
\nappellant,  were  fully aware of the fact  of  the  intended
\ntoken  strike  on  April 10, 1964.   The  Labour  Court\t has
\nfurther\t held that the inquiry proceedings,   conducted\t  by
\nShri Gupta, were bona fide and fair, and they suffered\tfrom
\nno. infirmity,
\n547<\/span>
\nwhatsoever.   The  Labour Court further holds  that,  though
\nnormally imposing of a punishment, for\tmis-conduct,   under
\nthe Standing Orders, is a managerial function, in this case,
\nthe  appellant was not justified in taking into account\t the
\nwarning,  recorded on May 8, 1964, in respect of  the  first
\nstrike.\t It is the further view, of the Labour Court,\tthat
\nthe  continuance of disciplinary proceedings, and  recording
\nof  warnings, on May 8, 1964, by the appellant, against\t the
\nsix concerned workmen, in respect  of the first strike,\t was
\nwith  a\t view\tto  create  a  ground\tfor  punishment\t and
\ndismissal,  in the subsequent proceedings, relating  to\t the
\nsecond\tstrike, and, as such, the action of  the  management
\nwas  not bona fide.  The Labour Court, in  this\t connection,
\nrefers\tto  the\t  proceedings  of  the\tDistrict  Industrial
\nRelations  Advisory Committee, that took place on March\t 29,
\n1964,  in  the\tpresence  of  the  representatives  of\t the
\nappellant,  and\t the Union, and the Labour Court is  of\t the
\nview  that  a settlement had been arrived at, by  which\t the
\nmanagement  has\t agreed,  not  to  take\t  any\tdisciplinary
\naction,\t against the workers, in connection with  the  first
\nstrike:\t  Ultimately,  the  Labour  Court  holds  that\t the
\npunishment  of dismissal, inflicted on the six\tworkmen,  by
\nthe  appellant,\t on  May 22,  1964,  is\t unconscionable\t and
\nunjustified,  and  not recorded in a bona  fide\t manner.  In
\nconsequence, the order of dismissal, passed against the\t six
\nconcerned  workmen,  named in the annexure to the  order  of
\nreference, was set aside and the workmen were directed to be
\nreinstated, with 50% back wages.\n<\/p>\n
    We\thave  fairly elaborately referred  to\tthe  various
\ncircumstances,\tleading\t to  the passing  of  the  order  of
\ndismissal,  bY\tthe management, in order to  appreciate\t the
\ncontentions,   urged  on behalf of the management, that\t the
\nLabour\t Court\thad  committed\ta  serious  illegality,\t  in
\ninterfering  with  an order, passed by the  management,\t for
\nmis-conduct, as provided under\tthe  standing orders of\t the
\ncompany.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr.\t H.R. Gokhale, learned counsel, for  the  appellant,
\nraised two contentions before us:.(1)that’the finding of the
\nLabour\t Court,\t that  at  the\tmeeting\t of   the   District
\nIndustrial  Relations Committee, held on March 29, 1964, the
\nappellant  agreed not to take disciplinary  action,  against
\nits’ workmen, in respect  of the first strike, is erroneous;
\nand (ii) that having held that the second strike was illegal
\nas  being contrary to sub-s. (4) of s. 6-S of the  Act,\t the
\nLabour Court has committed an error in interfering with\t the
\nact  of\t the management, when it imposed a  punishment,\t for
\nmis-conduct, under the standing orders of the company.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. R. Vasudeva Pillai, learned counsel for the  Union,
\nhas supported, in full, the award of the Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n
     We\t are not impressed with either of  the\tcontentions,
\nof  the learned counsel for the appellant.  We have  already
\nreferred to
\nLI3Sup. CI\/68–4
\n548<\/span>
\nthe  proceedings,  of  the  District  Industrial   Relations
\nCommittee,     March  29, 1964.\t No doubt, a  day  prior  to
\nthat,  the  appellant  had issued notices  to  the  workmen,
\nasking\tthem  to show cause as to  why\tdisciplinary  action
\nshould\tnot be taken against them, for going on strike\tfrom
\nMarch  18,  1964.    There was a joint reply  given  by\t the
\nworkmen,  on  April  9, 1964, to the  effect  that,  at\t the
\nmeeting held on March 29, 1964, the managem.ent had  agreed,
\nnot  to take any disciplinary action, against  the  workmen,
\nand  that, it was on that’basis that the strike\t itself\t was
\ncalled off, and the workmen, arrested, were also released by
\nthe  Government.  There\t was no doubt  an  attempt,  by\t the
\nmanagement,  in\t their reply of April 10, 1964, to  make  it
\nappear\tthat  they  had not  committed\tthemselves,  at\t the
\nmeeting of March 29, 1964, as mentioned by the workmen.\t But
\nit  is\trather surprising that, when the  President  of\t the
\nUnion,\tWWI,  gave evidence to the effect that there  was  a
\nsettlement,  on March 29, 1964, whereby the management\t had
\nagreed\tnot  to take any disciplinary  action,\tagainst\t the
\nworkmen, there was absolutely no cross-examination,  by\t the
\nappellant,  of that witness.  There is no dispute  that\t Mr.
\nWright represented the management, at the said meeting,\t and
\nno  suggestion even has been made to WWI that the  evidence,
\ngiven  by him, is not correct.\tNo doubt, the appellant,  in
\ntheir letter of April 10, 1964, had taken the stand that the
\ncompany\t had  not committed itself, not to take\t any  action
\nagainst\t the workmen, in respect. of the first strike.\t The
\ninquiry\t report\t of  Shri Gupta, in respect  of\t the  second
\nstrike, was already in the hands of the management, on April
\n24,  1964. It is really after the receipt ‘of  this  report,
\nthat  the  Acting  Works Manager  of  the  appellant-company
\nrecorded warnings, as against the concerned workmen, on\t May
\n8, 1964,I in res’peet of the first strike. This warning\t has
\nbeen  taken  into  account, by the Works  Manager,  when  he
\npassed\tthe  order of dismissal, in respect  of\t the  Second
\nstrike,\t on  May  23,  1964.  Having  due  regard  to  these
\ncircumstances,\tthe  finding of the Labour Court,  that\t the
\ncontinuance of the disciplinary proceedings,  and  recording
\nof  punishments\t of warnings, as against the  six  concerned
\nworkmen, on May 8, 1964, in respect of the fixst strike,  by
\nthe  management\t was to create a ground for  punishment\t and
\ndismissal,  in\trespect of the second strike,  is  perfectly
\njustified.   The further finding of the Labour\tCourt,\tthat
\n‘the  action  of the management, in  recording\twarnings  in
\nrespect of the first strike, is not only not bona fide,\t but
\nalso against the settlement,’arrived at, on March 29,  1964,
\nis.  also correct.  The first contention, on behalf  of\t the
\nmanagement, therefore fails.\n<\/p>\n
     There  is\tthe finding of the Labour  Court,  that\t the
\nsecond\tstrike,\t on  April 10, 1964 is\tillegal.   Going  on
\nillegal strike, is certainly ‘mis-conduct’ under sub-el. (2)
\nof el. 21, of the Standing Orders of the company. Under\t el.
\n22 of the Standing Orders, the
\n549<\/span>
\npunishment   for  mis-conduct  is  dismissal,  or,  in\t the
\nalternative,  suspension,  for a period not  exceeding\tfour
\ndays.\tIf  the management had, without any regard  to\twhat
\nhappened, in respect of the first strike, imposed punishment
\nunder  cl.  22, in respect of an illegal  strike,  which  is
\n‘mis-conduct’ under cl. 21 (2)of the Standing Orders,  after
\na fair inquiry, the punishment, meted out being a managerial
\nfunction,  would  not be normally interfered with.   But  in
\nthis  case, even the order of dismissal clearly\t shows\tthat
\nthe  management has taken into account the previous  conduct
\nof the workmen, in having gone on the first strike, and\t the
\npunishment  of warning, administered on May 8, 1964.  It  is
\nbecause\t of this past conduct, it is further stated  in\t the
\norder,\tthat  the  six workmen\twere  being  dismissed\tfrom
\nservice.   The\tfinding\t of the Labour\tCourt  is  that\t the
\nmanagement  was\t not  entitled\tto  take  into\taccount\t the
\nwarning,  given\t on  May 8, 1964, in respect  of  the  first
\nstrike,\t in  view of the settlement, on March 29,  1964.  In
\nview  of  the  fact that the warning  has  been\t taken\tinto
\naccount, by the management, which it is not entitled to, the
\npunishment of dismissal has been rightly considered, by\t the
\nLabour Court, to be not bona fide, and vindictive.  In fact,
\nthe Labour Court is also of the view that the punishment  is
\nunconscionable,\t and unjustified.  It is on  these  grounds,
\nthat  the  Labour  Court has interfered with  the  order  of
\ndismissal,   passed   by  the\tmanagement.\tThe   second
\nco.ntention,  of  learned counsel for  the  appellant,\talso
\nfails, as we are in agreement with the reasons, given by the
\nLabour Court, ‘on this aspect of the matter.
\n    The result is that this appeal fails, and is  dismissed.
\nThere will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
G.C.\t\t\t\t\t Appeal dismissed.\n550<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India G.E.C. (P) Ltd. Naini, Allahabad vs The Labour Court, Allahabad on 5 August, 1968 Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 235, 1969 SCR (1) 543 Author: C Vaidyialingam Bench: Vaidyialingam, C.A. PETITIONER: G.E.C. (P) LTD. NAINI, ALLAHABAD Vs. RESPONDENT: THE LABOUR COURT, ALLAHABAD DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/08\/1968 BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. […]<\/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-130079","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nG.E.C. (P) Ltd. Naini, Allahabad vs The Labour Court, Allahabad on 5 August, 1968 - 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\/g-e-c-p-ltd-naini-allahabad-vs-the-labour-court-allahabad-on-5-august-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G.E.C. (P) Ltd. Naini, Allahabad vs The Labour Court, Allahabad on 5 August, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-e-c-p-ltd-naini-allahabad-vs-the-labour-court-allahabad-on-5-august-1968\" \/>\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=\"1968-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-03T15:29:17+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-e-c-p-ltd-naini-allahabad-vs-the-labour-court-allahabad-on-5-august-1968#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-e-c-p-ltd-naini-allahabad-vs-the-labour-court-allahabad-on-5-august-1968\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G.E.C. (P) Ltd. Naini, Allahabad vs The Labour Court, Allahabad on 5 August, 1968\",\"datePublished\":\"1968-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-03T15:29:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-e-c-p-ltd-naini-allahabad-vs-the-labour-court-allahabad-on-5-august-1968\"},\"wordCount\":2688,\"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\\\/g-e-c-p-ltd-naini-allahabad-vs-the-labour-court-allahabad-on-5-august-1968#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-e-c-p-ltd-naini-allahabad-vs-the-labour-court-allahabad-on-5-august-1968\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-e-c-p-ltd-naini-allahabad-vs-the-labour-court-allahabad-on-5-august-1968\",\"name\":\"G.E.C. (P) Ltd. Naini, Allahabad vs The Labour Court, Allahabad on 5 August, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1968-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-03T15:29:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-e-c-p-ltd-naini-allahabad-vs-the-labour-court-allahabad-on-5-august-1968#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-e-c-p-ltd-naini-allahabad-vs-the-labour-court-allahabad-on-5-august-1968\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-e-c-p-ltd-naini-allahabad-vs-the-labour-court-allahabad-on-5-august-1968#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G.E.C. (P) Ltd. Naini, Allahabad vs The Labour Court, Allahabad on 5 August, 1968\"}]},{\"@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":"G.E.C. (P) Ltd. Naini, Allahabad vs The Labour Court, Allahabad on 5 August, 1968 - 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\/g-e-c-p-ltd-naini-allahabad-vs-the-labour-court-allahabad-on-5-august-1968","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G.E.C. (P) Ltd. Naini, Allahabad vs The Labour Court, Allahabad on 5 August, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-e-c-p-ltd-naini-allahabad-vs-the-labour-court-allahabad-on-5-august-1968","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1968-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-03T15:29:17+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-e-c-p-ltd-naini-allahabad-vs-the-labour-court-allahabad-on-5-august-1968#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-e-c-p-ltd-naini-allahabad-vs-the-labour-court-allahabad-on-5-august-1968"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G.E.C. (P) Ltd. Naini, Allahabad vs The Labour Court, Allahabad on 5 August, 1968","datePublished":"1968-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-03T15:29:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-e-c-p-ltd-naini-allahabad-vs-the-labour-court-allahabad-on-5-august-1968"},"wordCount":2688,"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\/g-e-c-p-ltd-naini-allahabad-vs-the-labour-court-allahabad-on-5-august-1968#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-e-c-p-ltd-naini-allahabad-vs-the-labour-court-allahabad-on-5-august-1968","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-e-c-p-ltd-naini-allahabad-vs-the-labour-court-allahabad-on-5-august-1968","name":"G.E.C. (P) Ltd. Naini, Allahabad vs The Labour Court, Allahabad on 5 August, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1968-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-03T15:29:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-e-c-p-ltd-naini-allahabad-vs-the-labour-court-allahabad-on-5-august-1968#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-e-c-p-ltd-naini-allahabad-vs-the-labour-court-allahabad-on-5-august-1968"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-e-c-p-ltd-naini-allahabad-vs-the-labour-court-allahabad-on-5-august-1968#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G.E.C. (P) Ltd. Naini, Allahabad vs The Labour Court, Allahabad on 5 August, 1968"}]},{"@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\/130079","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=130079"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130079\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130079"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130079"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130079"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}