MANAGEMENT OF THE FEDERATION OF INDIAN CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Vs. THEIR WORKMAN SHRI R K MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Appeal the Award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the Respondent R. K. Mittal, an employee of the Appellant the Award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the Respondent R. K. Mittal, an employee of the Appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the Federation') with full back wages and continuity of service is challenged, In February, 1965, the 20th Congress of International Chamber of Commerce was held in Delhi for which purpose a Committee known as the Indian National Committee of International Chamber of Commerce was brought into existence and the services of the Respondent along with other workmen were loaned to it by the Federation. The Respondent worked for about 40 days but was only paid overtime for about 7 days and consequently for about7 days and consequently he claimed overtime for the remainder of the days as according to him other workmen had also bee paid similarly. This claim was not admitted by the Federation with the result that the Respondent caused a Lawyer's notice to be issued to the Federation, to the Indian National Committee of International Chamber of Commerce and to the International Chamber of Commerce with its Head Office at Paris, demanding payment of his dues amounting to about Rs. 600/-. When no replies were received, he caused another notice to be served the retaining to file a suit whereupon the International Chamber of Commerce sent a telegram to the Federation enquiring whether it should deal with the matter or whether they would deal with it. To this the Federation replied that it will deal with it, but it appears that the claim of the Respondent was not settled. The Respondent then filed a suit for the payment of the arrears. The Federation felt that this action of the Respondent in causing legal notices to be served on the International Chamber of Commerce was taken with a view to bringing the Federation into disrepute, and it was capable of so bringing it in the eyes of the International Chamber of Commerce which Act being inconsistent with his duties and obligations as an employee constituted misconduct. A charge-sheet was served on the Respondent and a domestic enquiry was held in which he was held to be guilty of misconduct. This finding was forwarded to the Secretary who instead of dismissing him took a lenient view and terminated his services. Thereafter it is alleged that he filed a suit against the Federation and subsequently raised an Industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court for determination of the following issues namely whether the termination of the services of Shri R. K. Mittal is illegal and unjustified and if so what directions are necessary in this respect. After this reference it is stated that the suit filed by him have been withdrawn.

(2.) It was alleged that the workmen's grievance was unjustified and ins spite of his being informed that no discrimination has been practised he with a view to harass the management and compel it by unfair means to pay him more than what was legitimately due to him, started making complaints simultaneously to the Federation and International Chamber of Commerce which did not employ him and with the full knowledge that whatever grievance he legitimately had, had to be resolved only by a reference to the Federation which was his employer. It was averred that the enquiry conducted was fully in accordance with the principles of natural justice and requirements of law, that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were fair, reasonable and fully supported by the records of the Enquiry and that these definitely established the guilt of the Respondent. In any case the Federation was not an industry. On behalf of the Respondent it was contended that the Federation alone was not the host but it was the Indian National Committee of the International Chamber of commerce constituted of some officials of the Federation and the International Chamber of Commerce which conducted the 20th Congress and it was this Committee that employed the Respondent and paid him and the other workmen their remunerations. The attendance of the workmen was marked in a separate attendance register maintained for all such workmen who were engaged to work for the Congress irrespective of the fact whether those were the employees of the Federation or otherwise, that in spite of the representations when the management did not reply, the Respondent consulted two lawyers and instructed them to serve necessary legal notices who advised him that as the work related to the 20th Congress was managed by an independent Committee his claim for the remuneration against the Federation alone would not lie and that he would have to make a claim on all the three bodies namely the Federation, the Indian National Committee of International Chamber of Commerce and the International Chamber of Commerce, Paris, who constituted and managed the affairs of the Congress. He denied that there was any mala fide on his part nor did he ever intend to defame the Federation by serving a notice in accordance with the legal advise given to him. He, however, expressed his sincere regrets to the management and submitted his appeal to the Secretary General of the Federation and requested him to consider the matter, but it was not even acknowledged. In any case the punishment of discharge in such a small matter is too severe and completely out of proportion and smacks of victimisation. The assertion that the Federation was not an industry was denied.

(3.) Before the Tribunal a preliminary issue was raised that the Federation was not an industry and therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the reference. This preliminary objection was overruled and it was held on the evidence, that the charge held proved against the Respondent in the domestic enquiry was illegal and unjustified:that the Secretary had no authority that the Secretary had no authority to terminate the services; that the Management did not like the trade Union activities, that the action of termination of services of the Respondent amounted to victimisation and that even it was not an act of victimisation in any event the punishment is servere and therefore, it amounted to victimisation.