{"id":148120,"date":"1956-10-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1956-10-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmi-devi-sugar-mills-vs-nand-kishore-singh-on-4-october-1956"},"modified":"2016-05-25T09:40:56","modified_gmt":"2016-05-25T04:10:56","slug":"laxmi-devi-sugar-mills-vs-nand-kishore-singh-on-4-october-1956","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmi-devi-sugar-mills-vs-nand-kishore-singh-on-4-october-1956","title":{"rendered":"Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills vs Nand Kishore Singh on 4 October, 1956"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills vs Nand Kishore Singh on 4 October, 1956<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1957 AIR, 7\t\t 1956 SCR 746<\/div>\n
Author: N H Bhagwati<\/div>\n
Bench: Bhagwati, Natwarlal H.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nLAXMI DEVI SUGAR MILLS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNAND KISHORE SINGH.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n04\/10\/1956\n\nBENCH:\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\nBENCH:\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\nAIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA\nDAS, S.K.\nMENON, P. GOVINDA\n\nCITATION:\n 1957 AIR    7\t\t  1956 SCR  746\n\n\nACT:\nIndustrial  Dispute-Application for permission to dismiss  a\nworkman-Resolution  passed at a meeting of the Labour  Union\nfor  removal  of the General Manager-Vice President  of\t the\nUnion  addressing the meeting to instigate the\tworkers,  if\nguilty\tof  misconduct and  indiscipline-Refusal  to  answer\nqueries\t  by   the   General   Manager,\t  if   an   act\t  of\ninsubordination-Theory\t of  dual  capacity,   if   tenable-\nDismissal,  if can be permitted on a ground not included  in\nthe  charge  -Industrial Disputes (Appellate  Tribunal)\t Act\n(XLVIII\t of 1950) -U.  P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947\t (U.\nP. Act XXVIII of 1947),a.     3,   Standing   Orders,\t cl.\nL(1)(j).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe respondent, a stenotypist and the Vice-President of\t the\nLabour\tUnion, was charged by the appellant with  misconduct\nand indiscipline under clause L(1)(j) of the Standing Orders\nof  the\t Government  of Uttar Pradesh  for  instigating\t the\nworkmen to pass a resolution for the removal of the  General\nManager by a defamatory speech delivered at a meeting of the\nUnion.\tThe question in issue was whether the respondent  by\ndoing  so had committed \"any act subversive  of\t discipline\"\nwithin\tthe  meaning  of  that clause.\t In  course  of\t the\ncorrespondence with the General Manager over the matter,  as\nalso during the enquiry made by him, the respondent took  up\nthe  attitude that he, as a stenotypist, was not  answerable\nto his employers for his activities as Vice-President of the\nUnion  outside the factory area and persistently refused  to\nanswer\tquestions  categorically put to him by\tthe  General\nManager.   The\tappellant applied to  the  Labour  Appellate\nTribunal  under s. 22 of the Industrial Disputes  (Appellate\nTribunal)  Act\tof  1960  for  permission  to  dismiss\t the\nrespondent.   That  application\t having\t been  refused\t the\nappellant  obtained Special Leave to appeal to\tthe  Supreme\nCourt  and  it\twas  contended\tthat  the  passing  of\t the\nresolution and the refusal to answer questions in course  of\nthe   correspondence,and  the  enquiry\tamounted   to\tacts\nsubversive of discipline and the respondent was liable to be\ndismissed.\nHold, that it was perfectly legitimate for the Union to pass\nthe, resolution they did and no guilt either of a breach  of\nthe  Standing Orders or of committing an act  subversive  of\ndiscipline  could attach to the respondent for what part  he\ntook  in the meeting as Vice President of the Union and\t the\norder  of dismissal passed by the Labour Appellate  Tribunal\nmust be affirmed.\nThat where, as in the present case, the members of the Union\nwere  of  opinion  that\t the  circumstances  warranted\t the\nresolution, it\n747\nwas  not  for  the court to scrutinies\tthe  correctness  or\notherwise the reasons for it.\nHeld further, that the respondent was primarily an employ of\nthe  appellant before he could be anything else and  was  in\ndut  bound to answer such queries as were put to him by\t the\nGener  Manager and his persistent refusal to do so,  on\t the\npretext\t of  a dual capacity,  amounted\t to  insubordination\nwhich  would have justifie his dismissal but  the  appellant\nhaving\tomitted\t to include this as ground  in\tthe  charge-\nsheet, which was served on the responds and formed the basis\nof the enquiry, could not be allowed to rel on it.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CiviL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 162 of 1954.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nthe  21st day of July 1953 of the Labour Appellate  Tribunal
\nof  India,  Lucknow in Miscellane ous Case No.\tC-III-33  of
\n1952.\n<\/p>\n
H.J. Umrigar and R. A. Govind for the appellant
\nB.P. Maheshwari for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
1956.  October 4. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nBHAGWATI  J.-The  Labour  Appellate  Tribunal  of  India  at
\nLucknow\t dismissed  the application of\tthe  appellant\tmade
\nunder  section\t22  of the  Industrial\tDisputes  (Appellate
\nTribunal)   Act,  1950,\t for  permission  to   dismiss\t the
\nrespondent,  its  workman, and the appellant  obtained\tfrom
\nthis Court Special Leave to Appeal against that order.
\nThe  respondent has been working as a Steno-typist with\t the
\nappellant  since 3rd December, 1946, and is also  the  Vice-
\nPresident of the Union of workers which is affiliated to the
\nIndian\tNational Trade Union Congress and is known as  Chini
\nMills  Mazdoor\tSangh One M. P. Singh has  at  all  relevant
\ntimes  been  and  is  still  the  General  Manager  of\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
The  relations\tbetween the appellant and its work  men\t are
\ngoverned  by the Standing Orders framed by mutual  agreement
\nbetween\t the  Labour and the Sugar Mills  in  Uttar  Pradesh
\nwhich have been approved by
\n97<\/span>
\n748<\/span>
\nthe  Government of Uttar Pradesh.  ClauseL(1)(j)of the\tsaid
\nStanding Orders runs as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“Drunkenness or gambling or riotous or disorderly  behaviour
\nwhile  on duty in factory premises, or in quarters  provided
\nby  the\t mills\tor  elsewhere  or  any\tact  subversive\t  of
\ndiscipline”.\n<\/p>\n
These are among the items of misconduct which would  entitle
\nthe appellant, after due enquiry, to dismiss a workman\tfrom
\nits employ.\n<\/p>\n
There  were longstanding disputes between the appellant\t and
\nits  workmen since October, 1946, and on the 23rd  February,
\n1949,  Kedar  Nath  Khetan,  one  of  the  partners  of\t the
\nappellant,   wrote  to\tShri  Kashi  Nath  Pandey,   General
\nSecretary,   Indian  National  Sugar   Workers\t Federation,
\npromising  to  remove  the General Manager as  soon  as\t the
\nseason\tof  the\t Chhitauni factory  was\t over.\t There\twas,
\nhowever, an agreement arrived at between the partners of the
\nfactory\t and  the  Chini Mills Mazdoor\tSangh  on  the\t13th
\nSeptember,  1949, under which the demand for the removal  of
\nthe  General  Manager  was withdrawn by\t the  workers.\t The
\ndisputes,  however, continued and matters came to a head  in
\n1952.\tIn May, 1952, the management charged 76\t members  of
\nthe  Union for participation in a  ‘Tools-down’strike.\t The
\nmatter\twent up to the Labour Appellate Tribunal  which,  by
\nits  award, reinstated all the 76 workmen.   The  management
\npreferred  writ petitions Nos. 402 and 409 in the  Allahabad
\nHigh Court but the same also were dismissed.  Special  Leave
\nwas obtained from this Court against those decisions of\t the
\nAllahabad High Court and the same are pending.
\nDuring the pendency of the application of the management for
\nthe  discharge\tof  the said 76 workmen\t before\t the  Labour
\nAppellate Tribunal., the workers held a meeting on the\t10th
\nJune,  1952,  near an old mosque outside  the  factory\tarea
\nto  consider the situation arising out of the suspension  of
\nthe  76 workmen and the ways and means of meeting the  same.
\nThe respondent participated in the said meeting as the Vice-
\nPresident  of  the Union and made a speech  criticising\t the
\nattitude of the General Manager in terms
\n749<\/span>
\nwhich  were set out in the report dated the 10th June,\t1952
\nsubmitted  by  two  workers by name Ganga  Dhar\t Tewari\t and
\nJamuna\tPrasad\tto the General Manager.\t The speech  of\t the
\nrespondent as reported there was to the following effect:-
\n“The  General  Manager of this factory wants  to  crush\t the
\nLabour movement from the very beginning.  He allowed some of
\nhis  intermediaries to join strike when Shri  Shibban.\t Lal
\nSaxena\thad  served  a\tstrike notice.\t His  men  had\talso
\npersuaded  some\t of our members to join the  strike.   As  a
\nresult\tof this we had decided to launch a strike.   On\t the
\nother  hand, the Manager Sahib was sitting on the phone\t for
\nthe  permission of the Collector to dismiss all\t our  fellow
\nworkers.   Shri\t Moti Lal Singh was able  to  discover\tthis
\nconspiracy and he at once prevented us from going on strike.
\nThen Manager Sahib could not succeed in his plan.
\nThis  time  he\thas falsely accused 76\tof  our\t workers  of
\nresorting  to Tools-down strike.  These workers will  surely
\nbe reinstated.\tBut our efforts are rendered useless due  to
\nthe  acts of the Government Officers; the Collector of\tthis
\nDistrict  is  getting some thing secretly from\tthe  Manager
\nSahib.\t We  have only one alternative open to\tus,  let  us
\nagain  agitate for his dismissal.  Many of  the\t proprietors
\nhave written to me against him”.\n<\/p>\n
A resolution was moved at that meeting for the reinstatement
\nof the 76 workers and dismissal of Shri Madan Pal Singh, the
\nGeneral Manager and the same was passed.\n<\/p>\n
As  stated  above,  the two workers Ganga  Dhar\t Tewari\t and
\nJamuna\tPrasad reported the proceedings of the said  meeting
\nto  the General Manager on the very same day.\tThe  General
\nManager thereafter addressed a letter to the respondent\t on-
\nthe  16th July, 1952  stating that he, the  respondent,\t was
\npresent\t in and addressed a meeting held on the\t 10th  June,
\n1952,  wherein,\t among other matters, a resolution  for\t the
\nreinstatement of the 76 suspended workers and the removal of
\nthe General Manager was passed.\t He asked the respondent  to
\ngive him information regard-\n<\/p>\n
750<\/span><\/p>\n
ing the above-mentiond facts within 24 hours of the  receipt
\nof  the\t letter.  The respondent replied on the\t 17th  July,
\n1952, stating that he never attended any meeting whatever in
\nhis  capacity  as  the\tSteno-typist  of  the  factory\t and
\nexpressed  his inability, therefore, to say anything in\t the
\ncapacity in which the letter dated the 16th July, 1952,\t had
\nbeen  addressed\t by the General Manager to him.\t  Not  being
\ncontent\t with bypassing the whole issue in this\t manner,  he
\nproceeded  to  observe\tthat it was none  of  the  factory’s
\nbusiness  to  seek information from him\t for  his  personal,
\nsocial or political activities outside the factory area.  He
\nstated\tthat as a matter of courtesy any  information  asked
\nfor  would  have been supplied by him, but,  as\t the  things
\nstood,\the very much regretted his inability to comply\twith
\nthe  wishes  of the General Manager.   The  General  Manager
\nagain addressed a letter to the respondent on the 17th July,
\n1952,  stating that he was entitled to seek the\t information
\nfrom him even in his personal capacity and asked him to\t let
\nhim  have the reply to the queries contained in\t the  letter
\ndated  the 16th July, 1952.  The respondent, in\t his  letter
\ndated  the 17th July, 1952 in reply, observed that  some  of
\nthe  conclusions drawn by the General Manager  were  “simply
\nout  of\t self-complacency” and he  respectfully\t begged-  to
\ndiffer\tfrom  the General Manager.  He stated  that  he\t had
\nnothing\t further to add to his earlier reply dated the\t17th
\nJuly, 1952.\n<\/p>\n
The  General  Manager  waited for a while  and\ton  the\t 1st
\nAugust,\t 1952,\tserved\tupon the  respondent  a\t chargesheet
\ncalling upon the respondent to show cause why action  should
\nnot  be\t taken\tagainst\t him under  clause  L(1)(j)  of\t the
\nStanding  Orders for making a speech in a meeting held\tnear
\nthe  local  mosque on the 10th June, 1952,  ‘wherein,  among
\nother defamatory remarks he, the respondent, instigated\t the
\nworkers\t to  take  steps  for the  removal  of\tthe  General
\nManager.  The respondent was asked to submit his explanation
\nlatest\tby 10 a.m. on the 2nd August, 1952.  The  respondent
\nsubmitted  his\twritten\t statement  accordingly\t wherein  he
\nstated that there was absolutely no justification whatsoever
\nfor charging him with broach of
\n751<\/span>
\nthe  Standing  Orders under clause L(1)(j).  He\t denied\t the
\nallegations  contained in the charge-sheet and wound  up  by
\nasking the General Manager to enlighten him as to under what
\nrules of the Factories Act, Commercial Establishments Act or
\nthe  Standing Orders, written replies in the  matters  other
\nthan  one’s daily routine work of the factory were  demanded
\nat such short notice.\n<\/p>\n
The General Manager fixed 10 a.m. on Monday the 4th  August,
\n1952, for the holding of the enquiry and the respondent\t was
\ncalled\tupon  to  present himself in time and  he  was\talso
\nintimated  that\t he would be at liberty to produce  oral  or
\ndocumentary  evidence in defence against the charges  framed
\nagainst him.\n<\/p>\n
An  enquiry was accordingly (held by the General Manager  on
\nthe 4th August, 1952.  The proceedings thereat were recorded
\nin  the\t form  of questions  and  answers.   The  respondent
\nadopted an attitude which was consistent with the one  which
\nhe  had\t adopted in the course of the  correspondence  above
\nreferred to.  He refused to answer the questions which\twere
\ncategorically  put by the General Manager to him and  stated
\nthat  he had nothing -to add to his written  statement.\t  He
\nalso  took up the attitude that if he had taken part in\t any
\nmeeting\t held under the auspices of the Chini Mills  Mazdoor
\nSangh outside the factory, the General Manager should  write
\nto  the\t officials of the Sangh for  necessary\tinformation.
\nWhen  it  was specifically put to him that  no\tconfidential
\nwork  was  taken  from\thim as he  had\tbeen  taking  active
\ninterest  in the anti-management activities maliciously\t and
\nhad  been exploiting the poor labour to force himself  being
\nconfirmed  by the management, he said that he did not  agree
\nwith it and it was not a question which needed any reply.
\nAs  a  result of the enquiry, the General Manager  made\t his
\nreport on the 24th October, 1952, wherein he found that\t the
\nrespondent  had made a speech exhorting the workmen  of\t the
\nfactory\t to pass a resotion for the removal of\tthe  General
\nManager, that the management was bound to lose confidence if
\na worker who had excited other workers against the General
\n752<\/span>
\nManager\t of  the concern refused to give a direct  reply  to
\ndirect questions, that, in the absence of a Stenotypist\t who
\ncould  enjoy  the  confidence  of  the\tmanagement,  it\t was
\nimpossible  to\trun  the factory without  the  risk  of\t any
\ntrouble\t  and  that  the  respondent  was  thus\t guilty\t  of
\nmisconduct and acts subversive of discipline.  As,  however,
\nthere  was  a  pendency of a proceeding\t before\t the  Labour
\nAppellate  Tribunal, an application should be made  to\tthat
\nauthority for permitting his dismissal.\n<\/p>\n
This report was accepted by the management and the appellant
\nmade  the  application under section 22\t of  the  Industrial
\nDisputes  (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, for permission  to
\ndismiss the respondent from its employ.\n<\/p>\n
The  Labour  Appellate Tribunal embarked on the\t freedom  of
\nspeech\tvouchsafed  to the citizens of India  under  article
\n19(1)(a)  of the Constitution, observed that the  making  of
\nthe speech in question at the meeting held by the respondent
\nas  the Vice-President of the Union was within the scope  of
\nthe  legitimate\t activities of the Union and held  that\t the
\nspeech\tsaid  to  have been made by the\t respondent  at\t the
\nmeeting\t could\tnot  be\t said to be  an\t act  subversive  of
\ndiscipline.    The   application  of   the   appellant\t was
\naccordingly dismissed.\tHence this appeal before us.
\nThe only question for determination before us is whether the
\nspeech\tmade  by the respondent at the meeting held  on\t the
\n10th  June, 1952, was an act subversive of discipline.\t The
\nrespondent  was the Vice President of the Union\t and,  prima
\nfacie,\tany  resolution passed by the Union asking  for\t the
\nremoval of the General Manager would be perfectly legitimate
\nif the members of the Union thought that there were  circum-
\nstances\t warranting the same.  The correctness or  otherwise
\nof the reasons given for such removal would not be liable to
\nscrutiny  by the Court, the only thing requisite being\tthat
\nthe  Union was not acting mala fide or was not\tactuated  by
\nany malice or illwill against the General Manager in passing
\nsuch  resolution.  The resolution by itself would  not\thave
\nthe effect of harming the General Manager at all,
\n\t\t 753<\/span>
\nIt  would  have to be forwarded to the\tmanagement  and\t the
\nmanagement  would  take such steps as it may be\t advised  on
\nreceipt\t of  the  resolution.\tIt would  then\tbe  for\t the
\nmanagement to find for itself whether the reasons given\t for
\nthe  removal of the General Manager were such as to  warrant
\nhis  removal.\tThe  management would then,  if\t it  thought
\nnecessary,  institute proper enquiries and come to  his\t own
\nconclusion  as to the desirability or otherwise of  the\t re-
\nmoval  of  the\tGeneral Manager.  So far  as  the  Union  is
\nconcerned,  apart from mala fides or malice or illwill,\t the
\nact  of\t its passing the resolution would be  innocuous\t and
\nwould  not be liable to be visited with any  punishment\t and
\nthe  members of the Union would no be committing any  breach
\nof  the Standing Orders nor would they be guilty of any\t act
\nsubversive  of discipline.  The gravamen of the charge\tmade
\nby the management against the respondent, however, was\tthat
\nthe  latter  was not merely responsible for the\t passing  of
\nsuch  resolution,  but,\t in  the speech\t which\the  made  in
\nsupport,  he  gave vent to such expressions  as\t were  quite
\nfalse and defamatory and was actuated by malice against\t the
\nGeneral\t Manager.   He Edited the members of the  Union\t who
\nwere  there assembled against the General Manager  with\t the
\nresult that his act was thus subversive of discipline.\t The
\nspeech had the effect of lowering the General Manager in the
\nesteem\tof  the\t workmen and subjecting\t him  to  hatred  or
\nridicule  and  the necessary effect of\tmaking\tsuch  speech
\nbefore\tthe workmen would be that they would look down\tupon
\nthe General Manager and would not be amenable to  discipline
\nand  it would be impossible to conduct the  management\twith
\nefficiency  with  such disgruntled workmen in  the  factory.
\nThe  words  used by the respondent were, therefore,  it\t was
\nurged, calculated to undermine the discipline in the factory
\nand his act was, therefore, subversive of discipline  bring-
\ning him well within the mischief of clause L(1) (j). of\t the
\nStanding Orders.\n<\/p>\n
It  was further urged that the conduct of the respondent  in
\nthe  course of the correspondence which took  place  between
\nthe General Manager and himself
\n754<\/span>
\nwas,  to say the least, impudent.  He relied upon  his\tdual
\npersonality  distinguishing  between  his  capacity  as\t the
\nSteno-typist  and his capacity as the Vice-President of\t the
\nUnion.\tThe act complained of was attributed to his capacity
\nas  the Vice-President of the Union and he refused  to\tgive
\nany  reply  to the queries addressed to him-because  in\t the
\nletter;\t addressed  by\tthe General Manager to\thim  he\t was
\ndescribed  as  the  Steno-typist.  He refused  to  give\t any
\ninformation  to\t the  General  Manager\tand  asked  him\t  to
\ncommunicate  with the Sangh or the Union if any\t information
\nwas  required by the General Manager in the matter  of\twhat
\ntook  place  at the meeting of the Union on the\t 10th  June,
\n1952.\tIn the enquiry also, he adopted a  similar  attitude
\nand refused to answer the direct questions addressed to\t him
\nby the General Manager in regard to the proceedings of\tthat
\nmeeting.\n<\/p>\n
It  was strenuously urged before us by the  learned  counsel
\nfor  the  appellant that this conductor the  respondent\t was
\nsubversive of discipline and amounted to such misconduct  as
\nwould entitle the appellant to dismiss him from its  employ.
\nThere  is considerable force in this argument and we are  of
\nthe   opinion  that  the  respondent  adopted  an   attitude
\nunbecoming  an\temployee  of the appellant.   He  adopted  a
\ntruculent  attitude in the course of the correspondence\t and
\nresorted  to the theory of his dual personality refusing  to
\nanswer the queries addressed to him by the General  Manager.
\nThis  attitude was, to say the least,  reprehensible.\tEven
\nthough\the happened to occupy what he considered to  be\t the
\naugust\tposition of the Vice President of the Union  he\t did
\nnot cease to be an emPloyee of the appellant and the attempt
\nto distinguish between his capacity as the Steno-typist\t and
\nhis  capacity  as  the\tVice-President\tof  the\t Union\t was
\nabsolutely  puerile.  He ought to have realised that he\t was
\nfirst-and  foremost an employee of the appellant and owed  a
\nduty  to the appellant to answer all the queries  which\t had
\nbeen  addressed to him by the General Manager.\tHis  evasion
\nto  give  such replies on the pretext of  shielding  himself
\nunder  his capacity as the Vice-President of the  Union\t was
\nabsolutely
\n\t\t755<\/span>
\nunjustifiable  and  if such insubordination  and  breach  of
\ndiscipline had been the subject-‘Matter of the charges\tmade
\nagainst\t him,  we do not see how the respondent\t could\thave
\nescaped the punishment of dismissal.\n<\/p>\n
Similar is the position in regard to the attitude which\t the
\nrespondent adopted at the enquiry.  He refused to answer the
\ndirect\tquestions  which were addressed to him and  had\t the
\ntemerity  to  ask  the General Manager to  see\this  written
\nstatement and find out for himself the answers to the  same.
\nTo say the least, the respondent was guilty of\tinsubordina-
\ntion  and if his attitude was such as would not\t conduce  to
\nthe  maintenance of discipline in the factory, here also  we
\nwould  have  found it difficult to  resist  the\t appellant’s
\nclaim  for his dismissal if he had been charged with  having
\nbeen guilty of such misconduct.\n<\/p>\n
The charge-sheet, however, only complained about the  speech
\nwhich  he  had made on the 10th June, 1952,  wherein,  among
\nother defamatory remarks, he, the respondent, had instigated
\nthe  workers  to take steps for the removal of\tthe  General
\nManager.   The\tenquiry which was held on  the\t4th  August,
\n1952,  also concentrated on this particular charge  and\t the
\nreport\twhich  was made by the General Manager on  the\t24th
\nOctober,  1952,\t also found that the respondent had  made  a
\nspeech exhorting the workers to pass the resolution for\t the
\nremoval of the General Manager.\t The acts of insubordination
\ncalculated to undermine the discipline in the factory  which
\nwe  have adverted to above were neither the  subject-matters
\nof  the\t charge\t nor were they relied upon  by\tthe  General
\nManager in his report as the grounds of misconduct entitling
\nthe  management to dismiss the respondent’ from its  employ.
\nThe passing of the resolution for the removal of the General
\nManager\t by  itself  was  not, as  already  stated,  an\t act
\nsubversive   of\t discipline  and  would\t not   entitle\t the
\nmanagement to dismiss him and we are of the opinion that, on
\nthe  record as it stood, the Labour Appellate  Tribunal\t was
\njustified  in  refusing to the appellant the  permission  to
\ndismiss the respondent from its employ.\n<\/p>\n
The charge-sheet which was furnished by the appel-\n<\/p>\n
98<\/span>
\n756<\/span><\/p>\n
lant to the respondent formed the basis of the enquiry which
\nwas held by the General Manager and the appellant could\t not
\nbe  allowed to justify its action on any other grounds\tthan
\nthose  contained  in the chargesheet.\tThe  respondent\t not
\nhaving\tbeen charged with the acts of insubordination  which
\nwould have really justified the appellant in dismissing\t him
\nfrom  its employ, the appellant could not take advantage  of
\nthe  same  even though these acts could be brought  home  to
\nhim.   We have, therefore, come to the\tconclusion’that\t the
\norder  made  by the’ Labour Appellate Tribunal\twas  correct
\neven  though  we have done so on grounds  other\t than  those
\nwhich commended themselves to it.\n<\/p>\n
We accordingly dismiss this appeal but having regard to\t the
\nconduct of the respondent which We have characterised  above
\nas  reprehensible we feel that the ends of justice  will  be
\nmet  if we ordered that each party do bear and pay  its\t own
\ncosts of this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills vs Nand Kishore Singh on 4 October, 1956 Equivalent citations: 1957 AIR, 7 1956 SCR 746 Author: N H Bhagwati Bench: Bhagwati, Natwarlal H. PETITIONER: LAXMI DEVI SUGAR MILLS Vs. RESPONDENT: NAND KISHORE SINGH. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/10\/1956 BENCH: BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. BENCH: BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. AIYYAR, […]<\/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-148120","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nLaxmi Devi Sugar Mills vs Nand Kishore Singh on 4 October, 1956 - 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\/laxmi-devi-sugar-mills-vs-nand-kishore-singh-on-4-october-1956\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills vs Nand Kishore Singh on 4 October, 1956 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmi-devi-sugar-mills-vs-nand-kishore-singh-on-4-october-1956\" \/>\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=\"1956-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-25T04:10:56+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxmi-devi-sugar-mills-vs-nand-kishore-singh-on-4-october-1956#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxmi-devi-sugar-mills-vs-nand-kishore-singh-on-4-october-1956\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills vs Nand Kishore Singh on 4 October, 1956\",\"datePublished\":\"1956-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-25T04:10:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxmi-devi-sugar-mills-vs-nand-kishore-singh-on-4-october-1956\"},\"wordCount\":3246,\"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\\\/laxmi-devi-sugar-mills-vs-nand-kishore-singh-on-4-october-1956#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxmi-devi-sugar-mills-vs-nand-kishore-singh-on-4-october-1956\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxmi-devi-sugar-mills-vs-nand-kishore-singh-on-4-october-1956\",\"name\":\"Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills vs Nand Kishore Singh on 4 October, 1956 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1956-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-25T04:10:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxmi-devi-sugar-mills-vs-nand-kishore-singh-on-4-october-1956#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxmi-devi-sugar-mills-vs-nand-kishore-singh-on-4-october-1956\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxmi-devi-sugar-mills-vs-nand-kishore-singh-on-4-october-1956#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills vs Nand Kishore Singh on 4 October, 1956\"}]},{\"@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":"Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills vs Nand Kishore Singh on 4 October, 1956 - 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\/laxmi-devi-sugar-mills-vs-nand-kishore-singh-on-4-october-1956","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills vs Nand Kishore Singh on 4 October, 1956 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmi-devi-sugar-mills-vs-nand-kishore-singh-on-4-october-1956","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1956-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-25T04:10:56+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmi-devi-sugar-mills-vs-nand-kishore-singh-on-4-october-1956#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmi-devi-sugar-mills-vs-nand-kishore-singh-on-4-october-1956"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills vs Nand Kishore Singh on 4 October, 1956","datePublished":"1956-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-25T04:10:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmi-devi-sugar-mills-vs-nand-kishore-singh-on-4-october-1956"},"wordCount":3246,"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\/laxmi-devi-sugar-mills-vs-nand-kishore-singh-on-4-october-1956#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmi-devi-sugar-mills-vs-nand-kishore-singh-on-4-october-1956","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmi-devi-sugar-mills-vs-nand-kishore-singh-on-4-october-1956","name":"Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills vs Nand Kishore Singh on 4 October, 1956 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1956-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-25T04:10:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmi-devi-sugar-mills-vs-nand-kishore-singh-on-4-october-1956#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmi-devi-sugar-mills-vs-nand-kishore-singh-on-4-october-1956"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmi-devi-sugar-mills-vs-nand-kishore-singh-on-4-october-1956#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills vs Nand Kishore Singh on 4 October, 1956"}]},{"@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\/148120","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=148120"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148120\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=148120"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=148120"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=148120"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}