D N BANERJI Vs. P R MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pratul Chandra Mitra was the Head Clerk, and Phanindra nath Ghose, the Sanitary Inspector of the Budge Budge Municipality, and they were also members of the Municipal Workers' Union. On receipt of complaints against them for negligence, insubordination and indiscipline, the Chairman of the Municipality suspended them on 13-7-1949, drew up seperate proceedings, and called for an explanation within a specified date. After the explanations were received, they were considered at a meeting of the Commissioner held on 6-8-1949 , and by a majority, and Commissioners confirmed the order of suspension and directed the dismissal of the two employees. At the instance of the Municipal Workers' Union who questioned the propriety of the dismissal, the matter was referred by the State of West Bengal on 24-9-1949 to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal made its award on 13-2-1950 that the suspension and punishment of the two employees were cases of victimisation, and it directed their reinstatement in their respective offices.

(2.) The Municipality took the matter to the High Court at Calcutta by means of a petition for writ of 'certiorari' under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. There were prayers in the petition for quashing the proceedings before the Tribunal, for cancellation of the award, and for an order restraining the authorities from giving effect to the award and from taking any steps in pursuance thereof. At the instance of the High Court, a separate application was filed under Art. 227. Both the petitions were heard by Harries C. J. and Sambhu Nath Banerjee J.

(3.) The points raised before them on behalf of the petitioners were five in all : (a) that there was no industrial dispute, and therefore there would be no reference under the Industrial Disputes Act to any tribunal; (b) that the said Act was not applicable to disputes with Municipalities; (c) that even if it did, it was 'ultra vires'; (d) that the Tribunal should not have directed reinstatement of the dismissed employees; and (e) that the award was bad on the merits. These contentions were negatived by the learned Judges, and the petitions were dismissed. But leave was granted under Art. 132 (1) of the Constitution, and that is how the matter has now come up before us.