{"id":16540,"date":"1978-03-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1978-02-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-borpukhurie-tea-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-1-march-1978"},"modified":"2016-10-02T00:38:43","modified_gmt":"2016-10-01T19:08:43","slug":"management-of-borpukhurie-tea-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-1-march-1978","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-borpukhurie-tea-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-1-march-1978","title":{"rendered":"Management Of Borpukhurie Tea … vs Presiding Officer, Industrial … on 1 March, 1978"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Management Of Borpukhurie Tea … vs Presiding Officer, Industrial … on 1 March, 1978<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 992, \t\t 1978 SCR (3) 439<\/div>\n
Author: J Singh<\/div>\n
Bench: Singh, Jaswant<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMANAGEMENT OF BORPUKHURIE TEA ESTATE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ASSAM AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT01\/03\/1978\n\nBENCH:\nSINGH, JASWANT\nBENCH:\nSINGH, JASWANT\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1978 AIR  992\t\t  1978 SCR  (3) 439\n 1978 SCC  (2) 667\n\n\nACT:\nIndustrial  Disputes  Act,  (Act XIV),\t1947,  S.  33(3)(b)-\nAmendment of an application changing the section  applicable\nshould be allowed by the Tribunals.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nUnder Section 3 3 (2) (b )'of Industrial Disputes Act,\t1947\nduring the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a\nConciliation Officer or a Board or of any proceeding  before\nan  arbitrator\tor a Labour Court or  Tribunal\tor  National\nTribunal  in respect of an industrial dispute, the  employer\nmay in accordance with the Standing Orders applicable to the\nworkmen\t concerned,  in\t such  dispute\tfor  any  misconduct\nconnected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether  by\ndismissal  or  otherwise  that workman,\t provided  that\t the\nworkman\t has  been  paid  his wages for\t one  month  and  an\napplication  has been made by the employer to the  authority\nbefore\twhich the proceeding is pending for approval of\t the\naction taken by the employer.  Under s. 33(b)which overrides\nSection 33(2) no  employer, during the pendency of any\tsuch\nproceeding  in\trespect of an industrial dispute,  take\t any\naction against any protected workman concerned in such\tdis-\npute  by  discharging or punishing whether by  dismissal  or\notherwise,  such  protected workman, save with\tthe  express\npermission  in\twriting of the authority  before  which\t the\nproceeding is pending.\nAgreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer  contained\nin the report submitted by him in respect of the  allegation\nof  grave  misconduct under Cl. 10(a) (2)  of  the  Standing\nOrders\tof the appellant's establishment, as  applicable  to\nRespondent  No.\t 2,  a\tprotected  workman,  the  Management\ndecided to dismiss, him.  As respondent No. 2 was a  workman\nand  an Industrial Dispute being reference No. 35  of  1964,\nwas  pending  before  the  Industrial  Tribunal,  Assam\t  at\nGauhati,  the management could not straightway\tdismiss\t the\nrespondent.   Accordingly, by its letter dated November\t 10,\n1966,  the Management informed respondent No. 2 that he\t had\nbeen  found  guilty of the charge contained in\tthe  charge-\nsheet served on him on September 19, 1966 and that he  would\nbe  dismissed  from  service of the  Company  but  that\t the\npunishment  would-not be put into effect pending  orders  of\nthe competent authority Under s. 33 of the Act. and in\tthe,\nmeantime,  he  would remain under suspension.  On  the\tsame\ndate,  an application was made by  the\tManagement-appellant\nbefore\tRespondent  No.\t 1,  under  s.\t33(2)  of  the\tAct.\nRespondent  No.\t 2  while  admitting  by  his  letter  dated\nNovember  17,  1976, that he was not yet  dismissed  as\t per\nletter\tdated 10th November, 1966 but only had to  be  under\nsuspension  without pay till the decision of  the  authority\nconcerned, requested the appellant to allow him to avail the\nprivileges of drawing ration (at per staff ration rate)\t and\nto  have  free\tsupply of tea and firewood,  as\t per  rules.\nThereafter,  on\t December  24, 1966,  the  respondent  filed\nbefore\tthe Industrial Tribunal a complaint under s, 33A  of\nthe Act alleging contravention of the provision$ of s. 33 of\nthe appellant praying for a decision in the matter.  On June\n27, 1967 when the appellant's original application under  s.\n33(2)(b) of the Act was till pending, the appellant made an\napplication to the Industrial Tribunal praying that the said\napplication be treated as one under s. 33(3)(b) of the\tAct.\nBy his order dated July 10, 1967, Respondent No.1 refused to\ntreat  the Management's original application under s.  33(2)\nof the Act as one under s. 33(3)(b) of the Act and  rejected\nthe same as not maintainable holding that the Management had\nviolated  the  provisions  of  the  Act\t in  dismissing\t the\nrespondent  who was admittedly a protected workman  'without\nobtaining  the\tpermission  from  the  Tribunal.   The\twrit\napplication  filed by the appellant in the Assam High  Court\nassailing the said orders was dismissed with the observation\nthat the punishment of dismissal\n440\nhaving\talready\t been infficted without complying  with\t the\nprovisions of s. 33(3) (b)    of  the Act, an Ex Post  Facto\npermission could not be granted.\nAllowing the appeal by special leave the Court\nHELD : 1. The Courts charged with the duty of  administering\njustice\t have  to remember that it is not the form  but\t the\nsubstance  of the matter that has to be looked into and\t the\nparties cannot be penalised for inadvertent errors committed\nby  them  in  the conduct of their  cases.   It\t is  equally\nimportant  for the Courts to remember that it  is  necessary\nsometimes  in appropriate cases for promotion of justice  to\nconstrue the pleadings not too technically or in a  pedantic\nmanner but fairly and reasonably. [444 F-G]\nWestern\t India Match Co. v. Workmen,<\/a> [1963] 2LLJ 459  at  p.\n464 applied.\n2. The Labour Courts and Tribunals are compete-.it to  allow\nthe parties when they are not actuated by any oblique motive\nto  modify  their  pleadings to\t subserve  the\tinterest  of\njustice. [445 A]\nPatna  Electric\t Supply Co. 'Ltd. Patna v. Bali Bai  &\tAnr.<\/a>\n[1958] S.C.R. 871, followed.\n3.  In\tthe  present  case  :-(a)  The\tappellants  original\napplication being, in fact andin     substance\t    for\npermission  under s. 33(3) of the Act, The  Tribunal  should\ndispose\t of  the I same in conformity with law\tafter  going\ninto the following  points\n\t      1. Whether it is conclusively proved that\t the\n\t      signatures  of the Manager of the\t Borpukburie\n\t      Tea Estate on the aforesaid cheque No. 53 were\n\t      forged ?\n\t      2. What became of the report which appears  to\n\t      have been made by the appellant to the  police\n\t      in respect of the said cheque and what is\t the\n\t      impact  of  the result of that report  on\t the\n\t      truth or otherwise of the alleged forgery ?\n\t      3. Whether a prima facie case for dismissal of\n\t      the respondent is made out by the appellant?\n\t      4. whether the appellant's decision to dismiss\n\t      the  respondent  was bona fide or\t was  it  an\n\t      outcome  of  any\tunfair\tlabour\tpractice  or\n\t      victimisation ?\n\t      5. Whether the respondent was entitled to\t any\n\t      payment\tin   the  interegnum   between\t the\n\t      conclusion of the enquiry and the final  order\n\t      of the Tribunal ? [445 A-E]\n[The Court gave further directions to dispose of the  matter\nwith utmost despatch not exceeding six months of the receipt\nof the order after going into the points suggested]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1764  of
\n1971.\n<\/p>\n
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dt. the
\n18th  September, 1970 of the Assam & Nagaland High Court  at
\nGauhati in Civil Rule No. 236 of 1967)
\nF. S. Narinian, P. H. Parekh & S. N. Choudhari
\nFor the Appellant
\nK. P. Gupta & B. B. Tawakley
\nFor Respondent No. 2<\/span>
\n441<\/span>
\nEx-Parte : For Respondent No. 1<\/span>
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nJASWANT\t   SINGH, J.-This appeal by special leave s directed
\nagainst\t the judgment and order dated September 18, 1970  of
\nthe  High Court of Assam and Nagaland passed ‘in Civil\tRule
\nNo. 236 of 1967 filed by the present appellant.
\nThe,  facts  giving rise to this appeal are  :\tShri  Naresh
\nKumar Ganguli, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to  as
\n‘the respondent’) was employed in the Borpukhurie Tea Estate
\nbelonging to Bishnauth Tea Company Ltd. (which is engaged in
\nthe  cultivation and manufacture of tea and employs a  large
\nnumber\tof  workmen of various categories to  carry  on\t its
\nbusiness) as a 2nd Clerk and was recognised as a  ‘Protected
\nWorkman’  within  the  meaning\tof  section  33(3)  of\t the
\nIndustrial  Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred  to  as
\n‘the Act’).  On September 11, 1966, the Company’s cheque No.
\n53 which allegedly bore the forged signatures of the Manager
\nof  the\t Borpukhurie Tea Estate was encashed  from  a  local
\nbanker.\t  On  enquiry, Mansid Munda, the  factory  chowkidar
\nstated that the cheque was cashed under instructions of\t the
\nrespondent and proceeds thereof amounting to Rs. 680\/-\twere
\nhanded over to the latter at the garden. office.  As the act
\nof the respondent prima facie constituted a grave misconduct
\nunder  clause  10(a) (2) of the Standing Orders of  the\t Es-
\ntablishment,  a charge sheet was served on him on  September
\n19,  1966  accusing him of obtaining  money  through  Mansid
\nMunda  from  the  local\t banker\t by  forging  the  Manager’s
\nsignatures  on the aforesaid cheque and calling upon him  to
\nsubmit\this  explanation in regard thereto which he  did  on
\nSeptember  22,\t1966.  As the explanation  tendered  by\t the
\nrespondent  (which  was\t one  of denial)  was  found  to  be
\nunsatisfactory,\t an enquiry into the charge was held by\t Mr.
\nR.  R.\tL.  Pennoll, Superintendent  of\t the  Company.\t The
\nrespondent  who\t was  present  throughout  the\tenquiry\t was
\nafforded opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced
\non  behalf  of the Company and to produce  evidence  in\t his
\ndefence.   At  the conclusion of the  enquiry,\tthe  Enquiry
\nOfficer\t submitted  his\t report\t stating  therein  that\t the
\nmaterial  adduced in the course of the enquiry\tproved\tthat
\nthe  respondent was guilty of grave misconduct as  envisaged
\nby  the\t aforesaid  clause  of\tthe  Standing  Order.\t The
\nManagement,  therefore, decided to dismiss  the\t respondent.
\nAs the respondent was a protected workman and an  industrial
\ndispute, being reference No. 35 of 1964, was pending before
\nthe  Industrial Tribunal, Assam at Gauhati,  the  Management
\ncould not straightaway dismiss the respondent.\tAccordingly,
\nby  its\t letter\t dated November\t 10,  1966,  the  Management
\ninformed the respondent that he had been found guilty of the
\ncharge\tcontained  in  the charge sheet\t served\t on  him  on
\nSeptember  19,\t1966  and that he would\t be  dismissed\tfrom
\nservice of the Company but that the punishment would not  be
\nput  into effect pending orders of the\tcompetent  authority
\nunder  section 33 of the Act, and in the meantime, he  would
\nremain\tunder suspension.  The communication dated  November
\n10,  1966  written  on\tbehalf\tof  the\t appellant  to\t the
\nrespondent ran as under:-\n<\/p>\n
442<\/span><\/p>\n
“Shri N. K. Canguli,
\n2nd Clerk,
\nBorpukhurie T.E.\n<\/p>\n
P.O. Charali.\n<\/p>\n
Dear Sir,
\nYou  are,  hereby informed that you have been  found  guilty
\nafter  due  hearing of your case as prescribed\tby  Standing
\nOrders of the charge served on you in my letter of the\t19th
\nSeptember, 1966.\n<\/p>\n
You are accordingly informed that you will he dismissed from
\nthe service of the company.\n<\/p>\n
This  punishment will not be put into effect pending  orders
\nof   the  competent  authority\tunder  section\t33  of\t the
\nIndustrial  Disputes Act, 1947 and in the meantime you\twill
\nremain\ttinder\tsuspension.  As my enquiry into\t the  charge
\nagainst\t you  has  concluded,  you  will  not  receive\t any
\nsubsistence allowance during this period of suspension.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t     Yours faithfully,
\n\t\t\t     Sd\/1- W. P. Swer,
\n\t\t\t     Assistant-in-Charge.”\n<\/p>\n
On the same date, an application was made by the  Management
\nbefore\tthe Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal,  Gauhati
\nunder  section 33(2) of the Act.  On November 17, 1966,\t the
\nrespondent  addresed  the  following  communication  to\t the
\nManager of the Borpukhurie Tea Estate :-
\n“The Manager,
\nBorpukhurie Tea Estate,
\nCharail P.O.\n<\/p>\n
Sir,
\n\t      It appears to me from your letter dated 10-11-
\n\t      66 that I am not yet dismissed, only I have to
\n\t      be on suspension without pay till you  receive
\n\t      any decision from the authority..\n<\/p>\n
\t      So, as I am not yet dismissed, you will  allow
\n\t      me  to avail the privilege in connection\twith
\n\t      any  service  with the Company  as  below\t and
\n\t      other if there are.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1)   Ration  “Rice  &  Atta”  (As  per  staff
\n\t      ration rate)
\n\t      (2) Tea “Free of cost’ (Still I am due to\t get
\n\t      a month ration)
\n\t      (3)  Fire-wood “Free of cost (Already  to\t get
\n\t      for the further months of the year),
\n\t      I\t will be happy of your early action in\tthis
\n\t      matter.  Soliciting an early confirmation.
\n\t\t\t      Yours faithfully,
\n\t\t\t    Sd\/- N. K. Ganguli
\n\t\t\t      2’nd Clerk.”\n<\/p>\n
443<\/span><\/p>\n
On December 24, 1966, the respondent filed before the Indus-
\ntrial  Tribunal\t a complaint under section 33A\tof  the\t Act
\nalleging  contravention of the provisions of section  33  of
\nthe  Act by the appellant and praying for a decision in\t the
\nmatter.\t  On  June 27, 1967, when its  original\t application
\nunder  section\t33(2)(b) of the Act was still  pending,\t the
\nappellant  made\t an application to the\tIndustrial  Tribunal
\npraying\t that the said application be treated as  one  under
\nsection 33(3)(b) of the Act.  This application is reproduced
\nbelow for facility of reference :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “1.-  That in submitting the application\tU\/s.
\n\t      33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act  there
\n\t      was a technical error made unintentionally  by
\n\t      the applicant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      2.    That  a reading of the application\twill
\n\t      clearly  indicate that the Management in\tfact
\n\t      intended\tto,  comply with the  provisions  of
\n\t      section  33(3) of the Act and not\t of  section
\n\t      33(2)   of   the\tsaid   Act,   although\t the
\n\t      application is described as such.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      3.    That even the Management’s letter  dated
\n\t      10th  November,  1966 addressed to Sri  N.  K.
\n\t      Ganguli  will  also indicate that\t action\t was
\n\t      being taken U\/s 33(3) of the I.D. Act.
\n\t      It  is,  therefore, prayed that  the,  Hon’ble
\n\t      Tribunal\t may   be  pleased  to\t treat\t the
\n\t      application as one U\/s 33(3) of the Industrial
\n\t      Disputes Act and for this etc.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
By  his order dated July 10, 1967, the Presiding Officer  of
\nthe  Industrial Tribunal refused to treat  the\tManagement’s
\noriginal application under section 33 (2) of the Act as\t one
\nunder section 33 (3) (b) of the Act and rejected the same as
\nnot  maintainable holding that the Management  had  violated
\nthe  provisions of the Act in dismissing the respondent\t who
\nwas  admittedly a protected work-man ‘without obtaining\t the
\npermission from the Tribunal’.\tAggrieved by this order, the
\nManagement filed an application before the High Court  under
\nArticle\t 226 of the Constitution seeking issuance of a\twrit
\nof  certiorari\tor mandamus or any  other  appropriate\twrit
\nquashing  the  aforesaid order dated July 10,  1967  of\t the
\nIndustrial  Tribunal  but the same was\tdismissed  with\t the
\nobservation that the punishment of dismissal having  already
\nbeen  inflicted\t without complying with\t the  provisions  of
\nsection\t 33(3)(b)  of the Act, an Ex Post  Facto  permission
\ncould  not  be granted.\t It is against this order  that\t the
\nManagement has come up in appeal to this Court.
\nAppearing  in support of the appeal, Mr. Nariman  has  urged
\nthat  though  it may be open to an  Industrial\tTribunal  to
\nwithhold  the permission contemplated by section 33 (3)\t (b)
\nof the Act if it finds that an employer has not been able to
\nmake  out  a  prima facie case\tjustifying  dismissal  of  a
\nworkman\t or if it finds that there is material to  establish
\nthat  the employer was guilty of unfair labour\tpractice  or
\nvictimisation,\tthere  was no justification in\tthe  instant
\ncase for the
\n444<\/span>
\nIndustrial Tribunal to hold that the appellant had  violated
\nthe  provisions\t of  section 3 3 (3) (b) of the\t Act  or  to
\nrefuse to accede to the prayer of the appellant to treat its
\noriginal  application dated November 10, 1966 as  one  under
\nsection\t 33 (3) (b) of the Act ignoring the  Teal  substance
\nthereof.\n<\/p>\n
We  find considerable force in the submissions made  by\t Mr.
\nNariman.  The facts and circumstances of the case especially
\nthe  underlined\t portions of the  correspondence  reproduced
\nabove i.e. the appellant’s very first letter dated  November
\n10,  1966 to the respondent which expressly stated  that  as
\nthe latter had been found guilty after due enquiry, he would
\nbe dismissed from service of the Company but the  punishment
\nwould not be put into effect pending orders of the competent
\nauthority under section 33 of the Act and in the meantime he
\nwould  remain  under suspension, and  the  respondent’s\t own
\napplication  dated November 17, 1966 to the  Management\t for
\npermission  to\tavail  of the  privileges  of  rations\tetc.
\nconnected with his service on the plea that he had not ‘yet’
\nbeen  dismissed, as also the averments in the ultimate\tpart
\nof  paragraph  10  of  the  appellant’s\t application   dated
\nNovember  10, 1966 to the Industrial Tribunal to the  effect
\nthat  the  respondent  workman had been\t informed  that\t the
\nappellant  had\tdecided\t that he  should  be  dismissed\t for
\nmisconduct under clause 10(a) (2) of the Standing Orders but
\nuntil  permission of the Tribunal is received, he  would  be
\nunder  suspension  clearly show that the appellant  had\t not
\ndismissed  the\trespondent but had only decided\t to  dismiss
\nhim,  and  the Industrial Tribunal and the High\t Court\twere
\nmanifestly  wrong in making Auction to the contrary.  It  is
\nunfortunate  that both the Industrial Tribunal and the\tHigh
\nCourt tried to clutch at some stray words here and there  to
\njustify\t rejection  of the appellant’s prayer to  treat\t its
\noriginal application as one under section 33 (3) (b) of\t the
\nAct  and in so doing missed the real pith and  substance  of
\nthe  application.   The\t courts charged\t with  the  duty  of
\nadministering  justice have to remember that it is  not\t the
\nform  but the substance of the matter that has to be  looked
\nto  and\t the  parties cannot be\t penalised  for\t inadvertent
\nerrors committed by them in the conduct of their cases.\t The
\nfollowing  observations made by this Court in Western  India
\nMatch’ Company Ltd. v. Their Workmen<\/a>(1) are opposite in this
\nconnection :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      Again, as in most questions which come  before
\n\t      the Courts, it is the substance which  matters
\n\t      and   not\t the  form;  and  every\t  fact\t and
\n\t      circumstance relevant to the ascertainment  of
\n\t      the substance deserve careful attention.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  is equally important for the Court to remember  that  it
\n‘is  necessary sometimes in appropriate cases for  promotion
\nof justice to construe the pleadings not too technically  or
\nin a pedantic manner but fairly and reasonably.
\nKeeping\t in  view therefore the totality of ‘lie  facts\t and
\ncircumstances\tof   the  case\tand  the  purport   of\t the
\nobservations of this Court
\n(1) [1963] 2 L.L.J.459,464.\n<\/p>\n
445<\/span><\/p>\n
in  Patna  Electric  Supply Co Ltd.  Patna  v.\tBali  Bai  &
\nAnr.<\/a>(1) to. the ,effect that the Labour Courts and Tribunals
\nare  competent\tto  allow  the parties\twhen  they  are\t not
\nactuated by any oblique motive to modify their pleadings  to
\nsubserve  the interests of justice, we are of the view\tthat
\nthe present is an eminently fit case in which the industrial
\nTribunal  should treat the appellant’s original\t application
\nwhich  was  in fact and in substance for permission  as\t one
\nunder section 33(3)(b) of the Act and dispose of the same in
\nconformity with law after going into the following points :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      1. Whether it is conclusively proved that\t the
\n\t      signatures  of the Manager of the\t Borpukhurie
\n\t      Tea  Estate  on the aforesiad cheque No.\t5  3<\/span>
\n\t      were forged ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      2. What became of the report which appears  to
\n\t      have been made by the appellant to the  police
\n\t      in- respect of the said cheque and what is the
\n\t      impact  of  the result of that report  on\t the
\n\t      truth or otherwise of the alleged forgery ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      3. Whether a prima facie case for dismissal of
\n\t      the respondent is made out by the appellant ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      4. Whether the appellant’s decision to dismiss
\n\t      the  respondent  was bona fide or\t was  it  an
\n\t      outcome  of  any\tunfair\tlabour\tpractice  or
\n\t      victimisation ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      5. Whether the respondent was entitled to\t any
\n\t      payment\tin  the\t interregrium  between\t the
\n\t      conclusion of the enquiry and the final  order
\n\t      of the Tribunal ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Accordingly, we allow the appeal, quash the aforesaid orders
\nof the Industrial Tribunal and the High Court and remit\t the
\ncase  to  the  former  with  the  direction  to\t treat\t the
\nappellant’s aforesaid application dated November 10, 1966 as
\none  under section 33 (3) (b) of the Act and to dispose\t of
\nthe  same with utmost despatch not exceeding six  months  of
\nreceipt\t of  the order, after going into the point  get\t out
\nabove.\t The  parties  shall  be  allowed  to-\tadduce\tsuch
\nevidence  as  they  may like in\t respect  of  the  aforesaid
\npoints.\t  The  costs  of this appeal shall be  paid  by\t the
\nappellant   to\t the  2nd  Respondent  Workman\t which.\t  is
\n,quantified  at\t Rs. 1500\/-.  The order\t in  C.M.P.  5411\/71
\nshall stand.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t   Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  (1958) S.C.R. 871.\n<\/p>\n
446<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Management Of Borpukhurie Tea … vs Presiding Officer, Industrial … on 1 March, 1978 Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 992, 1978 SCR (3) 439 Author: J Singh Bench: Singh, Jaswant PETITIONER: MANAGEMENT OF BORPUKHURIE TEA ESTATE Vs. RESPONDENT: PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ASSAM AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT01\/03\/1978 BENCH: SINGH, JASWANT BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16540","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nManagement Of Borpukhurie Tea ... vs Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 1 March, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-borpukhurie-tea-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-1-march-1978\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Management Of Borpukhurie Tea ... vs Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 1 March, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-borpukhurie-tea-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-1-march-1978\" \/>\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=\"1978-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-01T19:08:43+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\\\/management-of-borpukhurie-tea-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-1-march-1978#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-borpukhurie-tea-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-1-march-1978\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Management Of Borpukhurie Tea … vs Presiding Officer, Industrial … on 1 March, 1978\",\"datePublished\":\"1978-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-01T19:08:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-borpukhurie-tea-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-1-march-1978\"},\"wordCount\":2198,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-borpukhurie-tea-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-1-march-1978#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-borpukhurie-tea-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-1-march-1978\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-borpukhurie-tea-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-1-march-1978\",\"name\":\"Management Of Borpukhurie Tea ... vs Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 1 March, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1978-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-01T19:08:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-borpukhurie-tea-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-1-march-1978#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-borpukhurie-tea-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-1-march-1978\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-borpukhurie-tea-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-1-march-1978#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Management Of Borpukhurie Tea … vs Presiding Officer, Industrial … on 1 March, 1978\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Management Of Borpukhurie Tea ... vs Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 1 March, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-borpukhurie-tea-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-1-march-1978","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Management Of Borpukhurie Tea ... vs Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 1 March, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-borpukhurie-tea-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-1-march-1978","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1978-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-01T19:08:43+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\/management-of-borpukhurie-tea-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-1-march-1978#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-borpukhurie-tea-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-1-march-1978"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Management Of Borpukhurie Tea … vs Presiding Officer, Industrial … on 1 March, 1978","datePublished":"1978-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-01T19:08:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-borpukhurie-tea-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-1-march-1978"},"wordCount":2198,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-borpukhurie-tea-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-1-march-1978#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-borpukhurie-tea-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-1-march-1978","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-borpukhurie-tea-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-1-march-1978","name":"Management Of Borpukhurie Tea ... vs Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 1 March, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1978-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-01T19:08:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-borpukhurie-tea-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-1-march-1978#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-borpukhurie-tea-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-1-march-1978"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-borpukhurie-tea-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-1-march-1978#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Management Of Borpukhurie Tea … vs Presiding Officer, Industrial … on 1 March, 1978"}]},{"@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\/16540","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=16540"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16540\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16540"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16540"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16540"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}