{"id":76435,"date":"1975-07-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-07-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rustom-hornsby-1-ltd-vs-t-b-kadam-on-24-july-1975"},"modified":"2018-04-15T18:09:00","modified_gmt":"2018-04-15T12:39:00","slug":"rustom-hornsby-1-ltd-vs-t-b-kadam-on-24-july-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rustom-hornsby-1-ltd-vs-t-b-kadam-on-24-july-1975","title":{"rendered":"Rustom & Hornsby (1) Ltd vs T. B. Kadam on 24 July, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rustom & Hornsby (1) Ltd vs T. B. Kadam on 24 July, 1975<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 2025, \t\t 1976 SCR (1) 119<\/div>\n
Author: A Alagiriswami<\/div>\n
Bench: Alagiriswami, A.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRUSTOM & HORNSBY (1) LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nT. B. KADAM\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT24\/07\/1975\n\nBENCH:\nALAGIRISWAMI, A.\nBENCH:\nALAGIRISWAMI, A.\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\n\nCITATION:\n 1975 AIR 2025\t\t  1976 SCR  (1) 119\n 1976 SCC  (3)\t71\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1978 SC 978\t (1)\n RF\t    1986 SC 842\t (8,12)\n\n\nACT:\n     Industrial Disputes  Act (14  of 1947), S. 2A Scope of-\nDomestic Enquiry  Jurisdiction of  Labour Court\t in relation\nto.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Section  2A   of  he  Industrial  Disputes\t Act,  1947,\nprovides that  where  any  employer  discharges,  dismisses,\nretrenches  or\t otherwise  terminates\tthe  service  of  an\nindividual workman,  any dispute  or difference between that\nworkman and  his employer  connected with  or arising out of\nsuch discharges\t etc., shall  be deemed\t to be an industrial\ndispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor union is a\nparty to the dispute.\n     The respondent  was a  watchman in\t the factory  of the\nappellant. He  was dismissed  from service  on Jan. 7, 1964,\nafter holding  a    domestic  enquiry  with  respect  to  an\nincident on the night of December 15, 1963. In June 1967 the\ndispute\t regarding  the\t dismissal  of\tthe  respondent\t was\nreferred  to   the  Labour   Court.  Directing\t him  to  be\nreinstated, the Labour Court, held that:\n     (1) The charge against the respondent was vague;\n     (2) The  suspected dishonesty  of the  respondent\t  in\nconnection with\t the appellant's property did not constitute\nany misconduct\teither under  Standing orders of the Company\nor otherwise; and\n     (3) The  domestic enquiry\theld was  defective because,\nthe respondent produced a police constable as his witness at\nthe time  of the enquiry who expressed his inability to give\nevidence without  the permission  of his  superiors and\t the\nEnquiry officer\t took no  steps for  obtaining the necessary\npermission. The\t Labour\t court\tsummoned  and  examined\t the\npolice constable and took his evidence into account.\n     In appeal to this Court, it was contended:\n     (1) That s. 2A came into force only on December 1, 1965\nand as\tthe  dismissal\ttook  place  before  that  date\t the\nreference of the dispute was bad; and\n     (2) That  the finding  of the Enquiry officer was based\nupon a\tfair enquiry  and the  Labour Court  should not have\ninterfered with the finding.\n     Allowing  the  appeal  to\tthis  Court  on\t the  second\ncontention,\n^\n     HELD: (1) The est for the validity of a reference under\ns. 10 is whether there was in existence a dispute on the day\nthe reference was made. [124B C]\n     Juhiruddin v.  Model Mills,  Nagpur [1966] 1 L.L.J 430,\napplied.\n     National Productivity  Council v.\tS. N. Kaul [1969] II\nL.L.J 186  and Shree  Gopal Paper  Mills Ltd.  v.  State  of\nHaryana, [1968] 1 Lab. I.C. 1259, approved.\n     P. Janardhana Shetty v. Union of India<\/a> [1970] II L.L.J.\n738, over-ruled.\n     (a) Section  2A provides  in effect that what would not\nbe an  industrial  dispute  as\tdefined\t in  s.\t 2  (k),  as\ninterpreted  by\t  this\tCourt,\twould  b  deemed  to  be  an\nindustrial dispute  in certain\tcircumstances. There  is  no\nquestion of  giving retrospective  effect to that section in\nmaking the  reference.\tWhen  the  section  uses  the  words\n\"discharges dismisses,\tretrenches etc.\"  it does  not\tdeal\nwith the question as to when that was done but merely refers\nto a situation or state of affairs. [123B-D]\n120\n     (b) It  is no  objection to  this to  say that. such an\ninterpretation would  lead  to an old dispute being reopened\nafter the lapse of many years, Every reference would be made\nonly sometime  after the  dispute has  arisen. Even  in this\ncase, if  a labour union or a group of workmen had sponsored\nthe case  of the respondent, such a reference after lapse of\nsome time  would have been valid. All that s. 2A has done is\nthat by legislative action such a dispute is deemed to be an\nindustrial dispute  even where\tit is  not  sponsored  by  a\nlabour union  or a  group of workmen. The only consideration\nin such\t matters is  whether there  was\t or  apprehended  an\nindustrial dispute when the reference was made.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t [123D-124B]\n     (2) The charge is not vague. [121H]\n     (3) The facts set out show that the charge is one of an\nattempt to steal the appellant's property and if proved, the\nrespondent, being  a watchman,\tdeserves  dismissal.  [121H-\n122A]\n     (4) When  a workman  is dismissed\tas  a  result  of  a\ndomestic enquiry  the only  power which the Labour Court has\nis to  consider whether the enquiry was proper and if it was\nso, no\tfurther question  arises. Findings properly recorded\nat an enquiry fairly conducted are binding on parties unless\nis shown  that such  findings were  perverse. It was not the\nduty of\t the Enquiry  officer  to  seek\t permission  of\t the\nconstable's superiors  and it  was the\trespondent's duty to\nhave his  witnesses properly  summoned. The enquiry was fair\nand the\t Labour Court had no right to examine the witness on\nbehalf of  the workman\tand based  on that evidence to upset\nthe finding arrived at the domestic enquiry. [124D-15C]\n     D.C.M. v. Ludh Budh Singh [1972] 3 S.C.R 29. Workmen v.\nFirestone Tyre & Rubber Co.<\/a> [1973] 3 S.C.R. 587 and Tata Oil\nCo. Ltd. v. Its Workmen<\/a> [1964] 7 S.C.R. 555, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1142 of
\n1969.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tspecial leave  from the\t award dated the 8th
\nNovember 1968  of the Labour Court, Poona in Reference (IDA)
\nNo. 9 of 1967.\n<\/p>\n
     G .  B. Pai,  O. C.  Mathur, D.  C. Shroff\t and  O.  N.
\nMishra, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     S.\t C.   Manchanda\t and  A.  G.  Ratnaparkhi,  for\t the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     ALAGIRISWAMI, J.-This  is an  appeal by  special  leave
\nagainst the  award of  the Labour Court, Poona directing the
\nreinstatement of  the  respondent  in  the  service  of\t the
\nappellant company.\n<\/p>\n
     The respondent  was a  watchman in\t the factory  of the
\nappellant at  Chinchwad, Poona.\t A domestic enquiry was held
\nagainst him  in respect of an incident on the night of 15-16
\nDecember 1963  and following  the enquiry  he was  dismissed
\nfrom service  on  the  7th  January  1964.  His\t appeal\t was
\ndismissed  after   a  personal\t hearing  by  the  appellate
\nauthority. Section  2A of  the Industrial  Disputes Act came
\ninto force  on 1st  December 1965  and on  23rd June  1967 a
\nreference  was\t made  by   the\t Government  of\t Maharashtra
\nregarding the  dismissal of  the respondent  to\t the  Labour
\nCourt, Poona  and the  Labour Court  held that\tthe domestic
\nenquiry held  against the respondent was defective, that the
\ncharges against\t the respondent\t had not  been made  out and
\ndirected him to be reinstated.\n<\/p>\n
121<\/span><\/p>\n
     There were\t four charges  framed against the respondent
\nin the domes tic enquiry. They were:\n<\/p>\n
\t  (1)  Suspected dishonesty  in connection  with the
\n\t       company’s property.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (2)  Gross  negligence   in  performance   of\t his
\n\t       duties.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (3)  Disobedience of\tinstructions  given  by\t the
\n\t       superiors.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (4)  Commission   of\t  an   act   subversive\t  of
\n\t       discipline.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
For the\t purposes of  this appeal  it is  not  necessary  to
\nconsider other charges than charge No. 1. The chargesheet is
\nrather a  bit confused\tbut the statement of facts regarding
\ncharge No.  1 is  clear and  there cannot  be any  doubt  or
\nconfusion about\t it. The  facts stated\tin the k chargesheet
\nare as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It is reported that while you were on duty in the
\n     and shift\ton Sunday  the 15th  December, 1963 at about
\n     10.30 P.M.\t you left  the guard  room and went into the
\n     factory. While  returning\tfrom  the  factory  you\t are
\n     reported to  have brought out with you a new Fluroscent
\n     Tube  and\t to  have  kept\t   it  in  the\tguard  room.
\n     Immediately after\tthis you  are also  reported to have
\n     directed one  of the  two watchmen on duty at that time
\n     to take a round with the tel-a-tel clock. It is further
\n     reported that  at about  11.20  P.M.  you\tremoved\t the
\n     Fluroscent Tube  from the\tguard room and were carrying
\n     it away  out of  the factory.  At this  stage you\twere
\n     challenged by  the watchman,  Shri\t M.  B.\t Shinde\t and
\n     consequently you\tbrought back the tube and left it in
\n     the guard\troom. The Company had, however, not received
\n     any report in the matter from you.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  You were,  therefore, called\tup when you reported
\n     for duty  on 16th\tafternoon and were questioned in the
\n     matter. When  you were  asked to  submit  your  written
\n     report about  the incident\t and about  your failure  to
\n     report immediately\t to your  superiors you\t stated that
\n     you will  submit  your  report  after  consulting\tyour
\n     pleader.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  The above  mentioned facts  and particularly\tyour
\n     unwillingness to submit written report when called upon
\n     to do  so give  rise to doubts about your integrity and
\n     faithfulness  both\t  in  regard  to  the  security\t and
\n     property belonging\t to the\t Company for  which you\t are
\n     responsible while\ton duty as a person in charge of the
\n     security of the Company.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The Labour\t Court took  the view  that  the  charge  of
\nsuspected  dishonesty\tin  connection\twith  the  company’s
\nproperty did  not constitute  any  misconduct  either  under
\nStanding order\t24 or  otherwise and  there fore  no  action
\ncould be  taken against\t the respondent on the basis of that
\ncharge, and  also that the chargesheet was vague. We can see
\nno vagueness  in the  chargesheet and  on the  basis of\t the
\nfacts set  out above there could be no doubt that the charge
\nis one of an attempt to steal the
\n122<\/span>
\ncompany’s property.  The respondent  being  a  watchman\t the
\ncharge is   a  serious one  and if  it was  held  proved  he
\ndeserves nothing short of dismissal.\n<\/p>\n
     The Labour\t Court was  concerned only with the question
\nwhether the domestic enquiry held against the respondent was
\na proper  enquiry. It held that the enquiry was not a proper
\none on\tthe ground that the respondent had produced a police
\nconstable as  his witness  at the  time of  enquiry and this
\nwitness expressed  his inability  to give  evidence with out
\nthe permission\tof his\tsuperiors, that\t it was\t clearly the
\nduty  of   the\tInquiry\t officer  to  obtain  the  necessary
\npermission and\tto help\t the respondent in the matter of his
\ndefence, that  the reluctance  on the  part of\tthe  Inquiry
\nofficer to  pursue the\tmatter further\tis indicative of the
\nfact that  he was  not inclined to afford proper opportunity
\nto the\trespondent to  defend himself,\tthat  there  was  no
\nnecessity for  the respondent  to apply again to the Inquiry
\nofficer for  obtaining the  necessary permission,  that\t the
\npassive approach  adopted by  the  Inquiry  officer  in\t the
\nmatter had  undoubtedly resulted in an opportunity to defend
\nhimself being  denied and  the\tinquiry\t will  therefore  be
\ndefective in  this respect.  It summoned  and  examined\t the
\npolice constable  and taking  his evidence also into account
\nheld as follows .\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Then there  is evidence  on\tthe  record  of\t the
\n     inquiry to\t show that the relations of the second party
\n     with the  Security Jamadar Shri David were strained. As
\n     a matter  of fact\tthe evidence  shows that the reports
\n     from the  watchmen started\t coming in  at his instance.
\n     The proceedings against the second party started on the
\n     report of\tShri David.  The said report and the reports
\n     made by the other watchman and the second party are not
\n     forthcoming though\t referred to  in the  record of\t the
\n     inquiry. Then  there is  the  glaring  fact  that\tvery
\n     ambiguous allegations  and charges\t which do  not\teven
\n     constitute any  misconduct are  made against the second
\n     party and in spite of the fact that the evidence in the
\n     inquiry is\t too conflicting  and  vague  the  concerned
\n     authorities have  without affording  proper opportunity
\n     to defend\tfound the second party guilty of the charges
\n     levelled against  him. On\ta  careful  reading  of\t the
\n     findings of  the Inquiry officer, the Works Manager and
\n     the Appellate Authority in the light of the recitals in
\n     the charge-sheet  it becomes absolutely clear that they
\n     have found\t him guilty  without applying  their mind to
\n     the facts\tand circumstances  of the  case.  All  these
\n     factors raise  a strong presumption that the removal of
\n     the second\t party was  predetermined by the first party
\n     and that  his dismissal is by way of victimization. For
\n     all the  aforesaid reasons\t therefore the\tdismissal of
\n     the second\t party\tmust  be  held\tto  be\tillegal\t and
\n     improper There  is nothing adverse the past against him
\n     and  he   is  therefore   entitled\t to  the  relief  of
\n     reinstatement with back wages.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The first\targument on  behalf of the appellant is that
\nthe incident  took place  in December  1963 and the order of
\ndismissal was made on the 7th of January 1964 and as section
\n2A of the Industrial Disputes
\n123<\/span>
\nAct came  into force  on 1-12-1965  the\t reference  of\tthis
\ndispute under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act read
\nwith section 2A is bad It is argued that this will amount to
\ngiving retrospective effect to the provisions of section 2A.
\nWe are\tnot able  to accept this contention Section 2A is in
\neffect a definition section. It provides in effect that what
\nwould not  be an  industrial dispute  as defined  in section
\n2(k) as\t interpreted by\t this Court would be deemed to be an
\nindustrial dispute  in certain circumstances. As was pointed
\nout by\tthis Court  in Chemicals & Fibres of India Ltd v. D.
\nG. Bhoir  & Ors.<\/a>(1)  the definition  could as well have been
\nmade part of clause (k) of section 2 instead of being put in
\nas a  separate section.\t There is  therefore no\t question of
\ngiving retrospective  effect to\t that section  in making the
\nreference which\t resulted in  the award under consideration.
\nWhen  the   section  uses  the\twords  “where  any  employer
\ndischarges, dismisses,\tretrenches or  otherwise  terminates
\nthe services of an individual workman” it does not deal with
\nthe question  as to  when that\twas done.  It  refers  to  a
\nsituation or  a state of affairs. In other words where there
\nis a  discharge, dismissal,  retrenchment or  termination of
\nservice otherwise  the dispute\trelating to  such discharge,
\ndismissal, retrenchment or termination becomes an industrial
\ndispute. It  is no  objection  to  this\t to  say  that\tthis
\ninterpretation would  lead to a situation where the disputes
\nwould be reopened after the lapse of many years and referred
\nfor adjudication  under section 10. The question of creation
\nof new\trights by section 2A is also not very relevant. Even
\nbefore the  introduction of section 2A a dispute relating to
\nan individual  workman could become an industrial dispute by
\nits being sponsored by a labour union or a group of workmen.
\nAny reference  under section  10 would be made only sometime
\nafter the  dispute itself  has\tarisen.\t The  only  relevant
\nfactor for consideration in making a reference under section
\n10  is\t whether  an   industrial  dispute   exists  or\t  is
\napprehended. There  cannot be  any doubt that on the day the
\nreference was made in the present case an industrial dispute
\nas defined  under s.  2A did  exist.  Normally\tthe  dispute
\nregarding an individual workman is not an industrial dispute
\nunless it is sponsored by the union to which he belongs or a
\ngroup of  workmen. The\tchange made by section 2A is that in
\ncertain cases such a dispute need not be so sponsored and it
\nwill still  be deemed  an industrial  dispute. Supposing  in
\nthis very  case a  labour union\t or a  group of\t workmen had
\nsponsored the  case of\tthe respondent\tbefore the reference
\nwas made,  such a  reference would have been valid. All that
\nsection 2A  has done  is that  by legislative  action such a
\ndispute is  deemed to be an industrial dispute even where it
\nis not\tsponsored by  a labour\tunion or a group of workmen.
\nWhat a\tlabour union or a group of workmen can do the law is
\ncompetent to  do. The  only question  for  consideration  in
\nconsidering the validity of a reference is whether there was
\nor apprehended\tan industrial dispute when the reference was
\nmade. If  there was  an industrial  dispute or an industrial
\ndispute was  apprehend. even though the facts giving rise to
\nthat dispute might have arisen before the reference was made
\nthe reference  would still  be valid.  It is  to be borne in
\nmind that every reference would be made only some-\n<\/p>\n
124<\/span><\/p>\n
time after  the dispute\t has arisen.  In Birla Brothers Ltd.
\nv. Modak(1)   it  was pointed out that though the Industrial
\nDisputes Act  came into\t force\tin  1947,  reference  of  an
\nindustrial dispute  based on  the facts\t which arose  before
\nthat Act  came into  force is  a valid\treference. The\tsame
\nreasoning would\t apply to  a reference\tof a dispute falling
\nunder section  2A even\tthough the facts giving rise to that
\ndispute arose  before that  section  came  into\t force.\t The
\ndecision in Birla Brothers case (supra) was approved by this
\nCourt in  its decision\tin  Jahiruddin\tv.  Model  Mills<\/a>  13
\nNagpur(2). These  two decisions\t clearly establish  that the
\ntest for  the validity\tof a  reference under  section 10 is
\nwhether there  was in  existence a  dispute on\tthe day\t the
\nreference was  made and\t there was  no\tquestion  of  giving
\nretrospective effect  to the  Act. We  find that is the view
\ntaken by  the Delhi  High  Court  in  National\tProductivity
\nCouncil v.  S. N. Kaul(3) by the Punjab & Haryana High Court
\nin Shree  Gopal Mills  Ltd. v.\tThe State of Haryana(4). The
\nview of\t the High Court of Mysore in P. Janardhana Shetty v.
\nUnion of India<\/a>(5) to the contrary is not correct
\n     Coming now\t to  the  other\t points\t in  the  case:\t the
\ndecisions of  this  Court  establish  clearly  that  when  a
\nworkman is  dismissed as  a result of a domestic enquiry the
\nonly power which the Labour Court has is to consider whether
\nthe enquiry  was proper and if it was so no further question
\narises. If  the enquiry\t was not proper the employer and the
\nemployee had  to be  given an  opportunity to  examine their
\nwitnesses. It is not the duty of the Enquiry officer in this
\ncase to seek permission of the police constable’s superiors.
\nIt was\tthe respondent’s duty to have him properly summoned.
\nHe did\tnot even apply to the Enquiry officer requesting him
\nto seek\t the permission of the police constable’s superiors.
\nIt is  therefore wrong\ton the\tpart of\t the Labour Court to
\nhave held  that the enquiry against the respondent was not a
\nproper enquiry. Once this conclusion is reached there was no
\nroom  for  the\tsummoning  and\texamination  of\t the  police
\nconstable by  the Labour  Court. The  question regarding the
\njurisdiction exercised\tby an Industrial Tribunal in respect
\nof a  domestic enquiry\theld by\t the  management  against  a
\nworker has  been elaborately considered by this Court in its
\ndecision in  D.C.M. v. Ludh Budh Singh(6) and the principles
\nthat emerge  out of the earlier decisions of this Court have
\nbeen set out in that decision. The decision of this Court in
\nWorkmen v.  Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co.<\/a>(7) also sets out the
\nprinciples that\t emerge from  the earlier decisions. In Tata
\nOil Mills  Co. Ltd.  v. Its  Workmen<\/a>(8) it  was argued\tthat
\nwhere the employee is unable to lead his evidence before the
\ndomestic Tribunal  for no  fault of  his own, an opportunity
\nshould be  given to  him to  Prove his\tcase in\t proceedings
\nbefore the  Industrial Tribunal.  This Court  held that this
\ncontention was not well founded. It was pointed out that the
\nEnquiry officer\t gave the employee ample opportunity to lead
\nhis evidence  and the  enquiry had  been fair.\tIt was\talso
\npointed out that merely because the witnesses did not appear
\n125<\/span>
\nto give\t evidence in support of the employee’s case it could
\nnot be\theld that he should be allowed to lead such evidence
\nbefore the  Industrial Tribunal and if such a plea was to be
\nupheld no  domestic enquiry  would be effective and in every
\ncase the  matter would\thave  to  be  tried  afresh  by\t the
\nIndustrial  Tribunal.  It  was\tpointed\t out  that  findings
\nproperly recorded  at the  enquiries fairly  conducted\twere
\nbinding on  the parties,  unless it  was shown that the said
\nfindings were  perverse, or  were not based on any evidence.
\nWe are\tnot able to agree with the Labour Court in this case
\nthat  the  findings  of\t the  domestic\tenquiry\t arc  either
\nperverse or not based on any evidence.\n<\/p>\n
     We therefore  come to  the conclusion that there was no
\nfailure on  the part  of  the  Enquiry\tofficer\t to  give  a
\nreasonable opportunity\tto the\trespondent workman, that the
\nenquiry was  fair and  the Labour  Court had,  therefore, no
\nright to  examine the  witness on  behalf of the workman and
\nbased on  that evidence\t to upset the finding arrived at the
\ndomestic enquiry.  We also  hold that the punishment imposed
\nin the circumstances is one in which the Labour Court cannot
\ninterfere. The\tresult is  that the  appeal will  have to be
\nallowed and the award of the Labour Court set aside.\n<\/p>\n
     It, however,  appears that\t the respondent had attained
\nthe age\t of 60 on 11-6-73 and even if he had been in service
\nhe would  have re tired on that date. Under an interim order
\nmade by this Court on 29-4-1969 the respondent has been paid
\nRs. 200\/-  per month  as part of the remuneration payable to
\nhim till  the hearing  and final  disposal of the appeal and
\nsuch payment has been made upto-date. Even if the respondent
\nhad succeeded in this appeal he would not have been entitled
\nto any\tpayment after  11-6-73. In view of this appeal being
\nallowed and  the award\tof the\tLabour Court being set aside
\nthe respondent\twill have to repay the money he had received
\nin, pursuance  of the order of this Court. The appellant has
\nagreed that  it would not take any steps to recover from the
\nrespondent the\tpayments already  made to him. There will be
\nno order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n126<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rustom & Hornsby (1) Ltd vs T. B. Kadam on 24 July, 1975 Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 2025, 1976 SCR (1) 119 Author: A Alagiriswami Bench: Alagiriswami, A. PETITIONER: RUSTOM & HORNSBY (1) LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: T. B. KADAM DATE OF JUDGMENT24\/07\/1975 BENCH: ALAGIRISWAMI, A. BENCH: ALAGIRISWAMI, A. GOSWAMI, P.K. UNTWALIA, […]<\/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-76435","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRustom & Hornsby (1) Ltd vs T. B. Kadam on 24 July, 1975 - 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\/rustom-hornsby-1-ltd-vs-t-b-kadam-on-24-july-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rustom & Hornsby (1) Ltd vs T. B. Kadam on 24 July, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rustom-hornsby-1-ltd-vs-t-b-kadam-on-24-july-1975\" \/>\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=\"1975-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-15T12:39:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rustom-hornsby-1-ltd-vs-t-b-kadam-on-24-july-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rustom-hornsby-1-ltd-vs-t-b-kadam-on-24-july-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rustom & Hornsby (1) Ltd vs T. B. Kadam on 24 July, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-15T12:39:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rustom-hornsby-1-ltd-vs-t-b-kadam-on-24-july-1975\"},\"wordCount\":2765,\"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\\\/rustom-hornsby-1-ltd-vs-t-b-kadam-on-24-july-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rustom-hornsby-1-ltd-vs-t-b-kadam-on-24-july-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rustom-hornsby-1-ltd-vs-t-b-kadam-on-24-july-1975\",\"name\":\"Rustom & Hornsby (1) Ltd vs T. B. Kadam on 24 July, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-15T12:39:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rustom-hornsby-1-ltd-vs-t-b-kadam-on-24-july-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rustom-hornsby-1-ltd-vs-t-b-kadam-on-24-july-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rustom-hornsby-1-ltd-vs-t-b-kadam-on-24-july-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rustom & Hornsby (1) Ltd vs T. B. Kadam on 24 July, 1975\"}]},{\"@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":"Rustom & Hornsby (1) Ltd vs T. B. Kadam on 24 July, 1975 - 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\/rustom-hornsby-1-ltd-vs-t-b-kadam-on-24-july-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rustom & Hornsby (1) Ltd vs T. B. Kadam on 24 July, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rustom-hornsby-1-ltd-vs-t-b-kadam-on-24-july-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-15T12:39:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rustom-hornsby-1-ltd-vs-t-b-kadam-on-24-july-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rustom-hornsby-1-ltd-vs-t-b-kadam-on-24-july-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rustom & Hornsby (1) Ltd vs T. B. Kadam on 24 July, 1975","datePublished":"1975-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-15T12:39:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rustom-hornsby-1-ltd-vs-t-b-kadam-on-24-july-1975"},"wordCount":2765,"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\/rustom-hornsby-1-ltd-vs-t-b-kadam-on-24-july-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rustom-hornsby-1-ltd-vs-t-b-kadam-on-24-july-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rustom-hornsby-1-ltd-vs-t-b-kadam-on-24-july-1975","name":"Rustom & Hornsby (1) Ltd vs T. B. Kadam on 24 July, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-15T12:39:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rustom-hornsby-1-ltd-vs-t-b-kadam-on-24-july-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rustom-hornsby-1-ltd-vs-t-b-kadam-on-24-july-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rustom-hornsby-1-ltd-vs-t-b-kadam-on-24-july-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rustom & Hornsby (1) Ltd vs T. B. Kadam on 24 July, 1975"}]},{"@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\/76435","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=76435"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76435\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76435"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76435"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76435"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}