NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is the Manager of the 'K' Group of the Ithad Motor Transport (Private) Ltd. has ben convicted under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40.00 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The prosecution case against the petitioner is that there was a dispute between the managemant of the Ithad Motor Transport (Private) Ltd. and and its workers and that this dispute was referred by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, for adjudication. The Tribunal gave its award on 7th May, 1958 One of the terms of the award was that the management shall inform the workers about their duties a week prior to the change in duty save in exceptional circumstances This term of the award was implemented for sometime by the management. But later on the management stopped notifying the workers as requited under the award. This failure on the part of the management in implementing the said teem of the award was brought to the notice of the Concili ation Officer of the Directorate of Industries and Labour, Delhi. But in spite of noticesssued to the management by the Labour Commissioner, the management had expressed their inability to implement this term of the award. The management was, therefore, guilty of breach of the condition of this award and was therefore liable to be convicted under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) . The prosecution examined seven witnesses in the trial court, some of whom proved the award of the Industrial Tribunal and some other proved that the management was not implementing the term of the award relating to the advance intimation to be given to the workers about their work. The petitioner in his statement under section 342 Cr. P. C , while admitting that the management was not giving advance intimation to the workers as required under the award, however, stated that the workers themselves had agreed that such advance intimation need not be given. Six witnesses were examined on the side of the petitioner. Some of these witnesses were said to the employees of the company and stated in their evidence that giving of advance intimation to the workers about the duties allotted to them was found to be unworkable and that they had themselves asked the management to discontinue the practice. On the consideration of this evidence the learned trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him as stated above and that conviction and sentence have been confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge in appeal. Shri Chadba, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged two contentions before me namely : (1) that the award of the Industrial Tribunal was not binding upon the 'K' group of the Ithad Motor Transport (Private) Ltd. and (2) that it was not practicable to implement the term of the award inquiring the giving of the advance notice of work to the workers.