C A OOMEN Vs. MANAGEMENT OF HAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing an order of the Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), on an application made before it under S. 33A of the Industrial. Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act) . Most of the material facts are not in dispute. An industrial dispute between the management of the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'Management'), and its workmen had been referred by the Government to the Tribunal under S.10 of the Act. That dispute related to bonus payable by the Management to its workmen for the years ending with 31-3-1963; 31-3-1964 and 31-3-1965. The petitioner is a workman in the Hindustan Aeronautics. In the ordinary course he was to get increments in the time scale of pay of 1-3-1965 and on the first day of March of the following years. But the Management withheld those increments on the ground that his work, conduct and behaviour were unsatisfactory. The petitioner filed a complaint purporting to be under S.33A of the Act, before the Tribunal complaining that such increments had been illegally withheld and that the action of the Management in so doing during the pendency of the industrial dispute between the Management and its workmen, was in contravention of the provisions of S.33 of the Act. He prayed the Tribunal to adjudicate upon his complaint and to grant him appropriate reliefs.

(2.) To that complaint the defence of the Management was that the petitioner was not entitled to such increments as of right, that as his work, conduct and behaviour, were unsatisfactory, such increments were withheld, that it was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Management to grant or withhold the same and that under standing order No. 5 (b) of its Certified Standing Orders, the Management was entitled to withhold increments in the time scale of pay of a workmen whose ability, production and conduct during the relevant period did not justify an increase in his pay. The Management denied that increments were withheld without any justifiable reason.

(3.) The Tribunal framed seven issues. The first of them relates to the question of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the complaint. The second issue relates to the question as to whether there was contravention of the provisions of S.33 of the Act. The fourth issue relates to the question whether the petitioner was entitled to progressive increments having regard to the provisions of Standing Order No.5(b) of the Standing Orders.