{"id":7445,"date":"1980-05-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1980-04-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-sudder-workshop-of-vs-its-management-and-vice-versa-on-1-may-1980"},"modified":"2016-03-27T02:45:39","modified_gmt":"2016-03-26T21:15:39","slug":"workmen-of-sudder-workshop-of-vs-its-management-and-vice-versa-on-1-may-1980","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-sudder-workshop-of-vs-its-management-and-vice-versa-on-1-may-1980","title":{"rendered":"Workmen Of Sudder Workshop Of &#8230; vs Its Management And Vice-Versa on 1 May, 1980"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Workmen Of Sudder Workshop Of &#8230; vs Its Management And Vice-Versa on 1 May, 1980<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 1454, \t\t  1980 SCR  (3) 966<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V Krishnaiyer<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nWORKMEN OF SUDDER WORKSHOP OF JOREHAUT TEA CO. LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nITS MANAGEMENT AND VICE-VERSA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT01\/05\/1980\n\nBENCH:\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nBENCH:\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1980 AIR 1454\t\t  1980 SCR  (3) 966\n 1980 SCC  (3) 406\n\n\nACT:\n     New Plea-Article  136 of the Constitution-Supreme Court\ncannot accept new plea not taken earlier.\n     Industrial Disputes  Act, Sections\t 25F and  25G, scope\nof-Back wages payment of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The Management  Tea Co. Ltd. appellant in C. A. 1538\/71\nretrenched on  November 5, 1966, 23 workmen, 16 of whom were\npaid retrenchment compensation allegedly in terms of section\n25F of\tthe Industrial Disputes Act based on wages obtaining\nprior to  Wage Board  Award, which came into force on 1-4-66\nretroactively and  in the  order of  'last come,  first go',\nwhile the  services of other seven were terminated, although\non payment of retrenchment compensation, allegedly in breach\nof Section  25G of  the Act,  i.e. out\tof turn. The dispute\nthat was raised was decided by the Tribunal which upheld the\nvalidity of  the retrenchment  of the  16, but set aside the\ntermination of\tthe other  seven. The High Court agreed with\nthe Tribunal's\tAward and  hence the  appeals  both  by\t the\nworkmen and the management after obtaining special leave.\n     Dismissing both the appeals, the Court\n^\n     HELD: 1.  The plea\t that the  amount  paid\t by  way  of\nretrenchment compensation  envisaged in\t Section 25F  of the\nIndustrial Disputes Act, not having been computed as per the\nrevised pay  scales as\tper the Wage Board Award, fell short\nof what\t was legally  due and hence there was non-compliance\nis not\ttenable because\t before the Tribunal this contention\nwas neither  pleaded nor  proved. There was no hint of it in\nthe Award.  In the  High Court\tthis new  plea based  on the\nfacts was  not permitted. Further the Wage Boards' Award was\nsubsequent  to\t the  retrenchment   although  retroactively\napplied\t and  the  workmen  had\t accepted  the\tretrenchment\ncompensation on\t the wages  prevalent at  the  time  of\t the\nretrenchment. In  the absence of any basis for this new plea\nSupreme Court  cannot reopen  an ancient matter of 1966. But\nthe 16 Workmen, being admittedly eligible for the Wage Board\nscale, would  be paid  the difference for the period between\n1-4-66 to 5-11-66. [969 A-E]\n     2.\t Section   25G\tof   the  Industrial   Disputes\t Act\npostulates that ordinarily the 'last come, first go' will be\nthe methodology\t of retrenchment.  Of course,  it is  not an\ninflexible rule\t and extra-ordinary  situations may  justify\nvariations. There  must be  valid reason  for this decision,\nand,  obviously,   the\tburden\t is  on\t the  Management  to\nsubstantiate the special ground for departure from the rule.\nSurely, valid and justifiable reasons are for the management\nto make\t our, and if made out, s. 25G will be vindicated and\nnot violated,  varying the ordinary rule of 'last come first\ngo.' There  is none  made out here, nor even alleged, except\nthe only plea that the retrenchment was done in compliance\n967\nwith s.\t 25G grade-wise.  Absence of mala fides by itself is\nno absolution  from the\t rule in  s.25G. Affirmatively, some\nvalid  and   justifiable  grounds  must\t be  proved  by\t the\nManagement to  be exonerated  from the\t'last come first go'\nprinciple. The above rule can be applied category wise. That\nis to  say those  who fell in the same category shall suffer\nretrenchment only  in accordance  with the principle of last\ncome first go. [969 E, H, 970 A, B, D-F]\n     <a href=\"\/doc\/883754\/\">M\/s. Om  Oil &amp;  Oil Seeds Exchange Ltd., Delhi v. Their\nWorkmen,<\/a> [1966] Suppl. S.C.R. 74, followed.\n     3. Grading\t for purposes  of scales  of  pay  and\tlike\nconsiderations will  not create\t new categorisation. It is a\nconfusion  or  unwarranted  circumvention  to  contend\tthat\nwithin the  same category if grades for scales of pay, based\non length of service etc., are evolved, that process amounts\nto creation of separate categories. In the instant case, the\nseniority List\tis the\tsame which is a telling circumstance\nto show that they fell in the same category. [971 C-E]\n     4. Supreme\t Court cannot  sympathise with\ta party\t who\ngambles in  litigation to put off the evil day and when that\nday arrives prays to be saved from his own gamble. The Award\nhad given  convincing reasons  for  reinstatement  and\teven\nreduced the  back wages\t to half.  Still, the  workmen\twere\ndragged to  the High  Court and,  worse, when worsted there,\nwere driven  from Assam\t to Delhi  to defend their pittance.\nThe logistics of litigation for indigent workmen is a burden\nthe management\ttried to  use by  a covert blackmail through\nthe  judicial\tprocess.  Misplaced  sympathy  is  a  mirage\njustice. [971 G-H, 972 A-B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeals Nos. 1303<br \/>\nof 1972 and 1538 of 1971.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Appeals by\t Special Leave\tfrom the Judgment and Orders<br \/>\ndated 13-4-1971\t of the\t Assam and  Nagaland High  Court  in<br \/>\nCivil Rule No. 368\/68 and 174\/68.\n<\/p>\n<p>     M. N.  Phadke and\tS. N. Choudhary for the appellant in<br \/>\nCA. No. 1538 and Respondent in CA No. 1303\/72.\n<\/p>\n<p>     P. R. Mridul and K. P. Gupta for Respondent No. 1 in CA<br \/>\n1538 and Appellant in CA No. 1303\/72.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     KRISHNA IYER,  J. These  two appeals,  turning  on\t the<br \/>\nvalidity of the retrenchment of 23 workmen way back in 1966,<br \/>\nare amenable  to common\t disposal. Mr. Phadke, appearing for<br \/>\nthe Management,\t argued straight  to the  point; so did Shri<br \/>\nMridul, with  the result  that we  could get the hang of the<br \/>\ncase without  much wrestling  with time\t or  getting  paper-<br \/>\nlogged. Since,\tin  substance,\twe  are\t inclined  to  leave<br \/>\nundisturbed the\t Award of the Industrial Tribunal, affirmed,<br \/>\nas it  were, by\t the High  Court, both these appeals will be<br \/>\ngiven short shrift with brief reasons.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">968<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     The facts,\t to the\t extent necessary  to appreciate the<br \/>\nissues\tcanvassed,  are\t brief.\t The  Management  of  a\t tea<br \/>\nplantation by  name Jorehaut  Tea Co.,\tLtd., retrenched  23<br \/>\nworkmen, 16  of whom  were  paid  retrenchment\tcompensation<br \/>\nallegedly in  terms of\ts.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act<br \/>\n(for short,  the Act)  and in the order of &#8216;last come, first<br \/>\ngo&#8217;, while  the services of the other seven were terminated,<br \/>\nalthough on  payment of retrenchment compensation, allegedly<br \/>\nin breach  of s.  25G of  the Act,  i.e. out  of  turn.\t The<br \/>\ndispute that  was raised  was decided  by the Tribunal which<br \/>\nupheld the  validity of\t the retrenchment  of the 16 but set<br \/>\naside the  termination\tof  the\t other\t7.  Consequently  it<br \/>\ndirected their reinstatement with some back wages. The Award<br \/>\ngranted the following relief:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  In respect  of the  workmen, viz.,  Sri  Bhogeswar<br \/>\n     Saikia  Sri   Nandeswar  Bora,   Sri  Gunai  Bora,\t Sri<br \/>\n     Premodhar Sarma,  Sri Alimuddin  Ahmed, Sri Deven Sarma<br \/>\n     and Shri  Harlal Biswas  whose  retrenchment  has\tbeen<br \/>\n     found  to\t be  not  justified  they  are\tentitled  to<br \/>\n     reinstatement with continuity of service. These workmen<br \/>\n     have  not\tcome  forward  to  say\tthat  they  remained<br \/>\n     unemployed from  the date of their retrenchment. In the<br \/>\n     circumstances of  the case,  I think  they may be given<br \/>\n     wages at  half the\t rate from  the date of retrenchment<br \/>\n     till the  date of\tpublication  of\t the  award  in\t the<br \/>\n     Gazette.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     We may first dispose of the workers&#8217; appeal. In all, 23<br \/>\npersons were  retrenched. In respect of 16 the rule of &#8216;last<br \/>\ncome, first  go&#8217; was  applied. Thus homage was paid to s.25G<br \/>\nof the Act. But then, the workmen in their appeal, contended<br \/>\nbefore us  that s. 25F had been breached and, therefore, the<br \/>\ntermination was\t bad in\t law. The Management&#8217;s case is that,<br \/>\nas a  fact, all\t or most  of them  had been  reinstated when<br \/>\nfresh vacancies\t had arisen,  although neither party is able<br \/>\nto assert  with certainty  this case  of reinstatement. That<br \/>\napart, if  there be  non-compliance with  s.25F, the  law is<br \/>\nplain that  the retrenchment  is bad.  However, when  probed<br \/>\nfurther as  to how  s.25F had  been  violated,\tShri  Mridul<br \/>\nargued\tthat   the  amount   paid  by  way  of\tretrenchment<br \/>\ncompensation envisaged\tin s.25F  fell\tshort  of  what\t was<br \/>\nlegally due  and hence\tthere was non-compliance. Under more<br \/>\nsearching  interrogation,   Shri  Mridul   stated  that\t the<br \/>\ncompensation  had  been\t computed  on  the  basis  of  wages<br \/>\npreviously paid\t and in\t derogation of\tthe Wage Board Award<br \/>\nwhich had  been implemented  by the  Management with  effect<br \/>\nfrom 1-4-1966.\tThe retrenchment  was on  November 5,  1966,<br \/>\ni.e. months after April 1, 1966. Therefore, the revised pay-<br \/>\nscales as  per the Wage Board Award should have been adopted<br \/>\nin calculating\tthe retrenchment  compensation. This  spinal<br \/>\nflaw rendered<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">969<\/span><br \/>\nthe tender  of compensation insufficient and, therefore, the<br \/>\nretrenchment itself  was invalid.  Maybe, there\t is apparent<br \/>\nforce in  this contention.  But Shri  Phadke countered it by<br \/>\nsaying that  it was  not open  to the  workmen to  spring  a<br \/>\nsurprise on  the Management especially when the question was<br \/>\none of fact. He urged that before the Tribunal no plea based<br \/>\non the\tWage Board  Award was made and it was quite possible<br \/>\nthat the Management would have adequately met the contention<br \/>\nif such\t a plea had been raised. The fact is that before the<br \/>\nTribunal  the  contention  pressed  before  us\twas  neither<br \/>\npleaded nor  proved. There is no hint of it in the Award. In<br \/>\nthe High  Court this  new plea\tbased on  the facts  was not<br \/>\npermitted. Had\tthere been  some foundation laid at least in<br \/>\nthe written  statement of  the workmen,\t we might  have been<br \/>\ninclined to  explore the  tenability of the plea, especially<br \/>\nbecause there  is no  dispute about the Wage Board Award and<br \/>\nthe fact  that it had been given effect to from 1-4-1966 and<br \/>\nthe further  fact that\tin the retrenchment notice the wages<br \/>\nwere not  calculated according to the Wage Board&#8217;s Award. It<br \/>\nmust be remembered, however, that the Wage Board&#8217;s Award was<br \/>\nsubsequent  to\t the  retrenchment   although  retroactively<br \/>\napplied\t and  the  workmen  had\t accepted  the\tretrenchment<br \/>\ncompensation on\t the wages  prevalent at  the  time  of\t the<br \/>\nretrenchment. In  the absence of any basis for this new plea<br \/>\nwe are\tunable to  reopen an  ancient matter  of  1966\tand,<br \/>\nagreeing with the High Court, dismiss the appeal. But the 16<br \/>\nworkmen, being eligible admittedly for the Wage Board scale,<br \/>\nwill be\t paid the difference for the period between 1-4-1966<br \/>\nto 5-11-1966.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Now, we  will take\t up the\t merits of  the Management&#8217;s<br \/>\nappeal which  relates to  the retrenchment of seven workmen.<br \/>\nAdmittedly, the\t rule in  s.25G of the Act, which postulates<br \/>\nthat ordinarily\t the &#8216;last  come,  first  go&#8217;  will  be\t the<br \/>\nmethodology of\tretrenchment, has  not\tbeen  complied\twith<br \/>\nprovided we  treat all\tthe workmen  in the  category as one<br \/>\ngroup. It  makes for  better appreciation of the point if we<br \/>\nread s. 25G at this stage:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  Where any  workman in an industrial establishment,<br \/>\n     who is  a citizen\tof India, is to be retrenched and he<br \/>\n     belongs to\t a particular  category of  workmen in\tthat<br \/>\n     establishment, in\tthe absence of any agreement between<br \/>\n     the employer  and\tthe  workman  in  this\tbehalf,\t the<br \/>\n     employer shall  ordinarily retrench the workman who was<br \/>\n     the last person to be employed in that category, unless<br \/>\n     for reasons  to be recorded the employer retrenches any<br \/>\n     other workman.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     The key-note  thought of  the provision, even on a bare<br \/>\nreading, is  evident. The  rule is  that the  employer shall<br \/>\nretrench the  workman who  came last, first, popularly known<br \/>\nas &#8216;last come first go&#8217;. Of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">970<\/span><br \/>\ncourse it  is not  an  inflexible  rule\t and  extra-ordinary<br \/>\nsituations may\tjustify variations.  For instance,  a junior<br \/>\nrecruit who  has  a  special  qualification  needed  by\t the<br \/>\nemployer may  be retained  even though another who is one up<br \/>\nis retrenched.\tThere  must  be\t a  valid  reason  for\tthis<br \/>\ndeviation, and obviously, the burden is on the Management to<br \/>\nsubstantiate the special ground for departure from the rule.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Shri Phadke  brought to  our notice the decision in <a href=\"\/doc\/883754\/\">M\/s<br \/>\nOm Oil\t&amp; Oilseeds  Exchange Ltd., Delhi v. Their Workmen<\/a> to<br \/>\nmake out  that it  was not a universal principle which could<br \/>\nnot be\tdeparted from by the Management that the last should<br \/>\ngo first.  The Management had a discretion provided it acted<br \/>\nbona fide and on good grounds. Shah, J. in that very ruling,<br \/>\nwhile agreeing\tthat a\tbreach of  the\trule  could  not  be<br \/>\nassumed as  prompted by\t mala fides  or\t induced  by  unfair<br \/>\nlabour practice\t merely because of a departure or deviation,<br \/>\nfurther observed  that the Tribunal had to determine in each<br \/>\ncase whether  the Management  had acted\t fairly and not with<br \/>\nulterior motive. The crucial consideration next mentioned by<br \/>\nthe learned  Judge is  that  the  Management&#8217;s\tdecision  to<br \/>\ndepart from  the rule  must be\tfor  valid  and\t justifiable<br \/>\nreasons,  in   which  case   &#8220;the  senior  employee  may  be<br \/>\nretrenched before  his junior  in employment.&#8221; Surely, valid<br \/>\nand justifiable\t reasons are for the Management to make out,<br \/>\nand if made out, s. 25G will be vindicated and not violated.<br \/>\nIndeed, that  very decision stresses the necessity for valid<br \/>\nand good  ground for varying the ordinary rule of &#8216;last come<br \/>\nfirst go&#8217;.  There is  none made\t out here, nor even alleged,<br \/>\nexcept the  only plea  that the\t retrenchment  was  done  in<br \/>\ncompliance with\t s. 25G grade-wise. Absence of mala fides by<br \/>\nitself\tis   no\t absolution   from  the\t  rule\tin  s.\t25G.<br \/>\nAffirmatively, some  valid and\tjustifiable grounds  must be<br \/>\nproved by  the Management  to be  exonerated from  the &#8216;last<br \/>\ncome first go&#8217; principle.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It must be remembered that the above provision which we<br \/>\nhave quoted insists on the rule being applied category-wise.<br \/>\nThat is\t to say,  those who  fall in the same category shall<br \/>\nsuffer retrenchment only in accordance with the principle of<br \/>\nlast come first go. The short point raised is that the seven<br \/>\nworkmen are  not in  the same  category. The  finding of the<br \/>\nTribunal, concurred  in by  the High Court is that they fell<br \/>\nin the same category. We quote the award:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;It will  be seen that when there is no trade test<br \/>\n     or anything  to mark  efficiency, there is no basis for<br \/>\n     placing the  workmen in  different grades\tand when all<br \/>\n     the workmen  of the  same category\t are to\t do the same<br \/>\n     work inasmuch as by the management&#8217;s own evidence there<br \/>\n     is no gradewise allo-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">971<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     cation of\tduty within  the same  category. Although in<br \/>\n     the evidence  the Management  wanted to  justify  their<br \/>\n     departure from  the principle  of &#8216;last  come first go&#8217;<br \/>\n     there is  nothing\tto  show  that\tsuch  a\t reason\t was<br \/>\n     recorded for  deviating  from  the\t principle.  In\t the<br \/>\n     circumstances of  the case\t it cannot  be said that the<br \/>\n     management&#8217;s selection  of\t persons  to  be  retrenched<br \/>\n     leaving the  juniormost in\t some category was justified<br \/>\n     and the  reason now  adduced  for\tdeviating  from\t the<br \/>\n     principle cannot  be accepted  in the  absence  of\t the<br \/>\n     reason being  not recorded at the time of retrenchment.<br \/>\n     Further it\t will be also noticed that although there is<br \/>\n     classification of\tworkmen into  grades (?)  within the<br \/>\n     category, there  is nothing  to distinguish one workman<br \/>\n     of one  grade from\t another workman  of  another  Grade<br \/>\n     inasmuch as  there is  no allocation  of duties amongst<br \/>\n     the workmen of different Grades in the category.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The  seniority\t list  is  the\tsame,  which  is  a  telling<br \/>\ncircumstance to\t show\tthat they fell in the same category.<br \/>\nGrading\t for   purposes\t of   scales   of   pay\t  and\tlike<br \/>\nconsiderations will  not create\t new categorisation. It is a<br \/>\ncontusion  or  unwarranted  circumvention  to  contend\tthat<br \/>\nwithin the  same category if grades for scales of pay, based<br \/>\non length of service etc., are evolved, that process amounts<br \/>\nto creation  of separate  categories. This  fallacy has been<br \/>\nrightly negatived by a detailed discussion in the Award. The<br \/>\nHigh Court  has avoided the pitfall and we decline to accept<br \/>\nthe submission.\t The result is that the Award must hold good<br \/>\nin regard to the illegally retrenched seven workmen.\n<\/p>\n<p>     What remains to be considered is the last submission of<br \/>\nShri Phadke that the engineering establishment wherein these<br \/>\nseven  workmen\t are  to  be  reinstated  is  no  longer  in<br \/>\nexistence. Further,  he pleads that on account of long lapse<br \/>\nof time\t on account  of the  pendency of  the appeal is this<br \/>\nCourt the  compensation payable\t by way\t of full  wages\t may<br \/>\namount to  a huge  sum disproportionate to the deviance from<br \/>\nthe law.  He, therefore, pleads for moulding the relief less<br \/>\nharshly.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We cannot\tsympathise  with  a  party  who\t gambles  in<br \/>\nlitigation to put off the evil day and when that day arrives<br \/>\nprays to  be saved  from his own gamble. The Award had given<br \/>\nconvincing reasons  for reinstatement  and even\t reduced the<br \/>\nback wages  to half.  Still, the workmen were dragged to the<br \/>\nHigh Court  and, worse, when worsted there, were driven from<br \/>\nAssam to  Delhi to  defend their  pittance. The logistics of<br \/>\nlitigation for\tindigent workmen  is a burden the Management<br \/>\ntried to  use by  a covert  blackmail through  the  judicial<br \/>\nprocess.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">972<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Misplaced sympathy  is mirage justice. We cannot agree. Even<br \/>\nso, we\ttake note  of  the  inordinate\tdelay  due  to\tlong<br \/>\npendency which\tis  part  of  the  pathology  of  processual<br \/>\njustice in  the Supreme\t Court. So  we direct  that half the<br \/>\nback  wages   between  the  date  of  retrenchment  and\t the<br \/>\npublication of\tthe Award  shall be paid, as directed in the<br \/>\nAward itself.  For the post-Award period, full wages will be<br \/>\npaid  until   the  High\t Court&#8217;s  judgment  on\t13-4-71\t and<br \/>\nthereafter 75% of the wages will be paid until 30-4-1980.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Counsel contends  that the Workshop is not in existence<br \/>\nnow and\t reinstatement is physically impossible. Sri Mridul,<br \/>\nfor the workmen, states that a just solution by the court in<br \/>\nthe given  circumstances is  acceptable. We  direct that, in<br \/>\nlieu of\t reinstatement, one  year&#8217;s wages  calculated on the<br \/>\nscale sanctioned  by the Wage Board recommendations for each<br \/>\nsuch workman be paid. All the sums, if not paid before 15-5-<br \/>\n80, shall  carry 12%  interest. And  upto 15-5-80 they shall<br \/>\ncarry 9% interest in supersession of the interim order dated<br \/>\n5-5-72.\t Rough\t and  ready   justice,\tfor   want  of\tfull<br \/>\ninformation, is not satisfactory but cannot be helped.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We dismiss\t the workmen&#8217;s\tappeal. No costs. We dismiss<br \/>\nthe Management&#8217;s  appeal, subject  to the  above directions,<br \/>\nwith costs quantified at Rs. 5,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<pre>S. R.\t\t\t\t\t  Appeals dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">973<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Workmen Of Sudder Workshop Of &#8230; vs Its Management And Vice-Versa on 1 May, 1980 Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 1454, 1980 SCR (3) 966 Author: V Krishnaiyer Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R. PETITIONER: WORKMEN OF SUDDER WORKSHOP OF JOREHAUT TEA CO. LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: ITS MANAGEMENT AND VICE-VERSA DATE OF JUDGMENT01\/05\/1980 BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, [&hellip;]<\/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-7445","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Workmen Of Sudder Workshop Of ... vs Its Management And Vice-Versa on 1 May, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/workmen-of-sudder-workshop-of-vs-its-management-and-vice-versa-on-1-may-1980\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Workmen Of Sudder Workshop Of ... vs Its Management And Vice-Versa on 1 May, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-sudder-workshop-of-vs-its-management-and-vice-versa-on-1-may-1980\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1980-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-26T21:15:39+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-sudder-workshop-of-vs-its-management-and-vice-versa-on-1-may-1980#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-sudder-workshop-of-vs-its-management-and-vice-versa-on-1-may-1980\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Workmen Of Sudder Workshop Of &#8230; vs Its Management And Vice-Versa on 1 May, 1980\",\"datePublished\":\"1980-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-26T21:15:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-sudder-workshop-of-vs-its-management-and-vice-versa-on-1-may-1980\"},\"wordCount\":2261,\"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\\\/workmen-of-sudder-workshop-of-vs-its-management-and-vice-versa-on-1-may-1980#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-sudder-workshop-of-vs-its-management-and-vice-versa-on-1-may-1980\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-sudder-workshop-of-vs-its-management-and-vice-versa-on-1-may-1980\",\"name\":\"Workmen Of Sudder Workshop Of ... vs Its Management And Vice-Versa on 1 May, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1980-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-26T21:15:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-sudder-workshop-of-vs-its-management-and-vice-versa-on-1-may-1980#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-sudder-workshop-of-vs-its-management-and-vice-versa-on-1-may-1980\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-sudder-workshop-of-vs-its-management-and-vice-versa-on-1-may-1980#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Workmen Of Sudder Workshop Of &#8230; vs Its Management And Vice-Versa on 1 May, 1980\"}]},{\"@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":"Workmen Of Sudder Workshop Of ... vs Its Management And Vice-Versa on 1 May, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/workmen-of-sudder-workshop-of-vs-its-management-and-vice-versa-on-1-may-1980","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Workmen Of Sudder Workshop Of ... vs Its Management And Vice-Versa on 1 May, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-sudder-workshop-of-vs-its-management-and-vice-versa-on-1-may-1980","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1980-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-26T21:15:39+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-sudder-workshop-of-vs-its-management-and-vice-versa-on-1-may-1980#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-sudder-workshop-of-vs-its-management-and-vice-versa-on-1-may-1980"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Workmen Of Sudder Workshop Of &#8230; vs Its Management And Vice-Versa on 1 May, 1980","datePublished":"1980-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-26T21:15:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-sudder-workshop-of-vs-its-management-and-vice-versa-on-1-may-1980"},"wordCount":2261,"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\/workmen-of-sudder-workshop-of-vs-its-management-and-vice-versa-on-1-may-1980#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-sudder-workshop-of-vs-its-management-and-vice-versa-on-1-may-1980","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-sudder-workshop-of-vs-its-management-and-vice-versa-on-1-may-1980","name":"Workmen Of Sudder Workshop Of ... vs Its Management And Vice-Versa on 1 May, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1980-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-26T21:15:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-sudder-workshop-of-vs-its-management-and-vice-versa-on-1-may-1980#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-sudder-workshop-of-vs-its-management-and-vice-versa-on-1-may-1980"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-sudder-workshop-of-vs-its-management-and-vice-versa-on-1-may-1980#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Workmen Of Sudder Workshop Of &#8230; vs Its Management And Vice-Versa on 1 May, 1980"}]},{"@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\/7445","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=7445"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7445\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7445"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7445"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7445"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}