MANAGEMENT OF THE BANGALORE WOOLLEN COTTON AND SILK MILLS CO LTD Vs. WORKMEN OF THE BANGALORE WOOLLEN COTTON AND SILK MILLS CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, preferred by the Management of the Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Co., Ltd., Bangalore, hereinafter called the Management, for a writ of Prohibition or such other writ, rule, order or direction, directing the Labour Court Bangalore, not to proceed with the enquiry Ref. No. 41 of 1964 pursuant to the Government's Order No. PLM 376 LLD 62 dated 23rd July, 1964. The material facts stated briefly are: In June 1956, the Management purporting to act under the provisions of its Standing Order 8(ii), terminated the services of one of its workmen Sri A. Ramachandran for alleged absence without leave. As an industrial dispute between the Management and its workmen was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in I. D. No. 11/55 at the time the said Ramachandran was deemed to have left the Management's service, he filed a complaint under Section 38A of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central Act 14 of 1947) hereinafter called the Act. The said complaint was not disposed of by the Industrial Tribunal for the reason that one of its members was permanently incapacitated, and the Government of Mysore passed an order on 31st May. 1958 transferring the said complaint, along with certain other complaints, to another Industrial Tribunal. The validity of the said order was questioned by the Management before this court in Writ Petition No. 102/58. and this court, by its order dated 28th January 1960. held that the order transferring complaint was not valid and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear that complaint transferred to it.

(2.) After the disposal of the said Writ Petition No. 302/58 by this court, the Executive Committee of the Binny Mills Labour Association. Bangalore a Trade Union of the Workers of the various mills of the Management, hereinafter called the Union, passed Resolution on 25th February. 1960 authorising its Office bearers to demand reinstatement of the said Rarnachandran, besides some others. On the basis of the said Resolution of the Executive Committee of the Union, its Secretary addressed a letter dated February 27, 1960 demanding reinstatement with back wages and all benefits of the said Ramachandran. It is necessary to set out relevant portions of the said letter. It reads:

(3.) The said reference was registered as Reference No. 41 of 64 and necessary pleadings were filed by the parties. The Management contended, inter alia that, there was no industrial dispute to be adjudicated upon, and consequently, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry in the mailer. On the said contention, the Labour Court framed the following issue: