EQUITABLE COAL CO LIMITED Vs. ALGU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Special Leave against the order passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India at Calcutta against the appellant under S. 23 of the Industrial Dispute (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950.

(2.) The respondents were the employees of the appellant. By their application, they complained that the appellant had illegally and unjustifiably dismissed them during the pendency of Appeal No. Cal. 167/53 before the Labour Appellate Tribunal at Calcutta without obtaining the express permission in writing of the Appellate Tribunal as required by S. 22 of the Act. The case of the respondents was that they had been victimised by the appellant for their trade union activities. On the other hand, the appellant alleged that the dismissal of the respondents was fully justified under S. 27 (5) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Colliery. Before the respondents were dismissed from service as from March 11, 1954, Mr. H. W. Briggs, Group Personnel Officer of the appellant had held a regular enquiry into the matter after supplying the formal charge-sheet to both the respondents. This enquiry was held in the presence of the respondents and full opportunity was given to them to cross-examine the witnesses who gave evidence against them and to lead their own evidence if they so desired. The enquiring officer was satisfied that the charges of riotous and disorderly behaviour and of assault framed against the respondents were fully established. The appellant denied that there was any victimisation against the respondents or that they had been punished for their trade union activities. It appears that the incidents which gave rise to the charge-sheet against the respondents and the enquiry held by the appellant against them subsequently became the subject-matter of criminal proceedings; and in those proceedings the two respondents have been convicted under S. 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 20 each, in default to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment of one month each. In regard to the contravention of the provisions of S. 22, the appellant pleaded that the said alleged contravention was purely technical and it did not justify any claim for compensation made by the respondents under S. 23 of the Act. The Labour Appellate Tribunal has found that the domestic enquiry conducted by the appellant was fair and satisfactory and that it could not be said that the view taken by the enquiring officer was "an impossible view." Nevertheless, since the appellant had not obtained the requisite permission under S. 22 of the Act, the Labour Appellate Tribunal held that the respondents were entitled to compensation. In the result, he directed the appellant to pay to each of the two respondents the 2/3rd of his basic wages and dearness allowance for the entire period, from the date of his dismissal up to the date when the order would become enforceable and also directed that the respondents should get everything that they were entitled to at the date on which they were dismissed by way of provident fund, gratuity, etc. It is this order which is challenged before us by the appellant in the present appeal.

(3.) Mr. Sen, for the appellant, has not disputed the fact that the appellant failed to obtain the requisite permission in writing of the Appellate Tribunal before dismissing the respondents. He, however, contends that the failure to obtain the requisite permission amounts to no more than a technical breach of S. 22 in the circumstances of the present case and his argument is that the respondents are entitle to no relief under S. 23 of the Act. A declaration may be granted in favour of the respondents that there has been a technical breach of S. 22 on the part of the appellant; but no other consequential order can be passed in favour of the respondent and against the appellant in the present proceedings. If at all proceedings may be taken against the appellant under S. 29 of the Act; that, however, would not justify the award of compensation made by the Appellate Tribunal in favour of the respondents.