BURN AND COMPANY LIMITED THE WORKMEN OF BURN AND COMPANY LIMITED Vs. THEIR WORKMEN: BURN AND COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by

(2.) THESE two appeals havebeen heard together as they arise out of the same award given by the Fifth Industrial tribunal of West Bengall, hereinafter referred to as the tribunal, in an industrial dispute which had been referred to the tribunal by the government of West Bengal by its order dated the 5th of April, 1955, as amended by an order of that government dated the 26th of May, 1955. In Civil Appeal No. 673 of 1957 Burn & Co. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Company, is the appellant whereas in Civil Appeal No. 674 of 1957 the workmen of Burn & Co. Ltd., are the appellants. The order of the government of West Bengal referring the industrial dispute to the tribunal contained a schedule of 32 items which were referred for its decision. The appeal preferred by the Company is confined to Items Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 14, 18, 19 and 27 whereas the appeal by its workmen covers Items Nos. 1, 2, 4, 12, 14 and 23.

(3.) USHA Ranjan Das Gupta is another workman concerned in Item 18. With reference to him the tribunal found that he was almost in the habit of loitering outside his place of work and that without the permission of his departmental head. The correspondence on the record carried the impression to the tribunal that this workman did not care to get any permission for going out. He had been warned but that had produced no effect upon him. He might have taken into his head that because he was the Assistant secretary of the Union, he could break discipline with impunity. In such circumstances, if he was placed under suspension, it could not be said that the Company was actuated by any improper motive to victimise him for his Union activities. The tribunal, accordingly, upheld the order of suspension. In its opinion, however, the penalty of dismissal as proposed to be <PG>531</PG> inflicted upon him by the Management appeared to be rather harsh and out of proportion to the offence committed by him. In his case also the tribunal ordered reinstatement. It seems to us, as in the case of H. D. Roy, on the findings, the award declaring reinstatement was not justified and is set aside. Here also, as in the case of Roy, the question of reinstatement was not a matter referred to the tribunal.