Eveready Flashlight Co.

 v/s Labour Court
1. The company appointed a workman on daily rate basis on 18th January,
1958 after trying-him for four days. On April 12, he was appointed on
probation for 6 months which could be further extended by the company at its
discretion.
2. He was elected a member of the working committee of the union on
September 9. On 10th September the management served him with a notice
of warning that in spite of repeated warnings he had shown no improvement
in his work. The warning was repeated on 11th October. On November 21,
1958 his service was terminated.
3. The Union raised an industrial dispute and the Labour Court found no
justification for putting the workman on probation after he had been tried and
that the condition of putting him on probation was just to delay making him a
permanent employee. 
4. It was held that "a condition of employment which is designed to invest the
employer with arbitrary power to keep the workmen at his mercy as regards
his chance of being made permanent, and to eventually lead to deprive him of
such chance would amount to unfair labour practice".
5. It was further observed that it is not necessary that there must be
numerous transactions before the employer could be branded guilty of unfair
labour practice and that he could be held guilty of such practice in respect of
one contract of employment only.

TITAGHUR PAPER MILLS CO LTD v/s RAM

NARESH KUMAR
1. The management dismissed a workman (who was the vice- president of the
workmen’s union) found guilty of gross negligence in the performance of
his duties and disobedience of orders after a regular enquiry. The dispute
was referred to the tribunal for adjudication.
2. The tribunal found that the domestic enquiry conducted by the
management was regular and proper, and that the workman was guilty of
misconduct punishable with dismissal.
3. However, it was of the view that the employer was bound to give to the
workman a reminder about his duties as was the usual practice, and that
there was room for suspicion that the employer wanted to get rid of him;
because he was an eye-sore on account of his union activities. Accordingly,
the tribunal held that this was a case of victimization and ordered
reinstatement of the workman.
4. Supreme Court held that it is not covered by any of the four grounds laid
down in Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. vs Their Workmen(1958) on
which a tribunal can interfere with the order of dismissal by the
management.
5. Dereliction of duty was clearly established, the management had the right
of dismissal under the relevant standing orders, proper enquiry was held
and the explanation of the workman was found to be childish.
6. It was not the duty of the management to remind the workman who was
failing to perform his duties properly, even if the management sometimes
did so. Nor can this be said to be a case of victimization, for the dereliction
of duty was clearly established.