NATIONAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED

National Manufacturing Company is a public limited concern having its factory at

Yamunanagar with its registered office in Delhi. It employs 1,200 workmen, who are
organised into a union called the "National Manufacturing Company Mazdoor Union".
Ramjas, a fitter in the engineering department, is the president of the union, and he
commands considerable .respect among the workmen.

On 30th April 1983, about 20 employees of the company led by Ramjas met the works
manager and asked him that May I be declared a holiday. The works manager expressed his
inability to oblige the union. Then the situation took an ugly turn. There was exchange of hot
words. Ramjas accused the works manager of being anti-working class and a callous despot.

The same evening, Ramjas addressed a gate meeting. He asked the workers to observe May
Day in a fitting manner. A resolution condemning the attitude of the works manager was also
adopted at the meeting.

At the start of the shift at 8:00 a.m. the next day, i.e. May Day, Ramjas went to the factory,
collected a number of workmen, including several office-bearers of the .union, and went from
department to department urging the workmen to stop work. Within a short time a large
number of workmen left their" work place and streamed out. A flag hoisting ceremony was
held outside the factory gate. Ramjas exhorted the workers to join the May Day rally later in
the evening. The factory did not work for the rest of the day.

The management issued a charge-sheet to Ramjas on 3rd May 1983 giving details of the
charges and stated that those acts amounted to gross misconduct, under Standing Orders
24(a), (c), (g), (k), (p). (For text of the Standing Orders see Annexure 1).
Ramjas was required to submit his explanation in the following language:

You are hereby required to submit your explanation to the above said acts of misconduct
within 24 hours of the receipt hereof as to why you should not be dismissed from the service
of the company. (For charge-sheet see Annexure II)

It was stated in the charge-sheet that Shri P.C. Gupta, the legal advisor of the company,
would hold the enquiry on the charge-sheet at 11.00 a.m. on 10th May, 1983 in the
Conference Room of the factory.

Ramjas refused to accept the charge-sheet. Therefore, it was sent to him by registered post on
the same day and a copy thereof was displayed on the notice-board of the company. The
registered cover was received back with the remarks "refused to accept". Ramjas, however,
appeared for the enquiry and asked in writing that he be permitted to be defended by a lawyer
or alternatively by Pritam Singh, the General Secretary of the union, who was not an
employee of the company. The request of Shri Ramjas was turned down by the enquiry
officer. Ramjas walked out from the enquiry room stating that he could not expect justice
from the legal adviser of the company who was biased in favour of the management and that
he was not being given proper opportunity to defend himself.

The enquiry officer recorded the statements of the management witnesses and concluded the
enquiry proceedings. He found Ramjas guilty of all the charges leveled against him. He
submitted his findings to the works manager. The works manager referred the same to the
secretary of the company at the head office for advice. The secretary wrote back that Ramjas
should be dismissed. Accordingly, the works manager issued a letter to Ramjas terminating
his services with immediate effect stating that all the charges levelled against him were found
proved and that he was guilty of misconduct for which dismissal was the proper punishment.

The punishment inflicted upon Ramjas was assailed by the union on the following grounds:
1. The charge of insubordination and subversive of discipline in passing resolution
condemning the works manager was not a misconduct and, as such, no enquiry could be held
against him.
2. The charge-sheet was invalid inasmuch as the management being biased against him had
already made up its mind to dismiss him and that holding of the enquiry was just a legal
formality.
3. No opportunity was given to him to defend ~imself.
4. The proceedings of the enquiry recorded in his absence were not binding on him and no
punishment could be awarded on the basis of the same.
5. The appointment of the legal adviser of the company as the enquiry officer was illegal and
against the principles of natural justice.
6. The works manager, being himself involved in the incident, was interested in the outcome
of the enquiry and could not act as the punishing authority.
7. The works manager in the circumstances could not and did not apply his mind
independently in deciding the quantum of punishment.
8. He was victimized for his trade union activities and for being the president of the union.

ANNEXURE I

24. (a) Wilful insubordination or disobedience alone or in combination with another or others
of any lawful and reasonable order of a superior.
(c) Striking work or inciting others to strike in contravention of the provisions of any statute
or the standing orders.
(g) Entering or leaving or attempting to enter or leave the factory except in accordance with
these standing orders.
(k) Threatening or intimidating any officer or employee on the factory premises.
(p) Deliberately making false, vicious, or malicious statements, public or otherwise, against
any officer or employee of the company.

ANNEXURE II

To,

Shri Ramjas,
Fitter, Engineering Department,
Token No. 1760

Whereas on 30th April 1983 you along with other 20 of your colleagues went to the office of
the works manager Shri Randhir Singh and on his declining your request to declare 1st May
1983 as a general holiday, you entered into heated arguments and used undesirable language
against him,
and whereas on the evening of the same day, i.e., 30th April, 1983, you organised and spoke
at a meeting outside the factory premises where a resolution condemning the works manager
was passed.
. Whereas on the morning of 1st May, 1983 you along with other workmen of the factory
moved from department to department and incited the workers to stop work. This resulted in
workmen walking out of the factory premises for the day. The above acts of omission and
commission on your part amount to misconduct under Section 24(a), (c), (g), (k), and (p) of
the Standing Orders.
You are hereby required to submit your explanation to the above said acts of misconduct
within 24 hours of the receipt hereof as to why you should not be dismissed from the service
of the company.
Please take note that an enquiry under the provisions of the Standing Orders in the matters of
the above charge-sheet will be held by Shri P.C. Gupta, Legal Adviser of the Company, at
11:00 a.m. on 10th May 1983 in the Conference Room of the factory.
You are hereby required to present yourself for the enquiry on the aforesaid date, time, and
place.

In view of the gravity of the misconduct mentioned above, you are also hereby placed under
suspension with immediate effect.

Questions
1. Was Ramjas justified in raising the demand for May-Day holiday on the 30th April, and
getting the work stopped on 1st May?

2. Was management justified in taking disciplinary action against Ramjas. If so, was the
charge sheet drafted and served on him properly?

3. Was the enquiry conducted in conformity with principles of Natural Justice? If not, on
what grounds it can be declared vitiated.

4. Is the punishment of dismissal in proportion to the offence committed? What is the

possibility of its being set aside or reduced by the Labour Court, or the higher court.