AJAY KUMAR Vs. INDIAN RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to the dismissal of the petitioner from service as pleaded in the petition, in brief, are:-

(2.) The petitioner was appointed in the respondent company as Junior Engineer on 29th June,1981. The workmen employed in the Headquarters as well as in the various Projects of the respondent Company formed a Trade Union known as IRCON Employees Union, New Delhi, which was registered with the Registrar of Trade Unions on 9th November 1983. The petitioner became the first President of the Union and one Mr.V.K.Talwar became its General Secretary. On 10th November 1983 a letter was sent by the petitioner to the management of the respondent Company requesting for recognition of the Union. In retaliation the management on 10th November 1983 at about 4.30 p.m. ordered the transfer of the petitioner from New Delhi to Anpara (M.P) a very remote place about 800 kms away in the State of Uttar Pradesh. V.K.Talwar was ordered to be posted on transfer at Korba (M.P) again a very remote place. The petitioner and the said V.K.Talwar filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the respondent company from transferring them. The Sub Judge, First Class, Delhi, on 15th November 1983 granted an ex parte stay of the transfer letter dated lOth November, 1983 and the respondents were directed to appear before the court on 22nd December 1983. The management of the respondent company was further annoyed on receipt of the said restraint order and started taking other measures to victimise the petitioner and other office bearers of the Union. The members of the Union were compelled by the management to disassociate with the Union and to submit their resignation from the office bearership as well as from membership of the Union. Since the petitioner is a Scheduled Caste he submitted a letter on 5th December 1983 to the Commissioner of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes expressing his grivances and apprehension that he may be removed from service on account of his being President of the Union. The Commissioner, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes looked into the grievances expressed by the petitioner in his letter dated 5th December 1983 and on the same day a letter was sent by the Commissioner to the management of the respondent Company alongwith which the complaint of the petitioner dated 5th December 1983 was also attached. With a view to victimise the petitioner and other office bearers of the Union the management on 7th December 1983 dismissed the petitioner and said V.K.Talwar from service without holding any enquiry whatsoever and without giving the petitioner and V.K.Talwar even a show cause notice or chargesheet and without giving them any opportunity of being heard.

(3.) Further the petitioner says that on 5th January, 1984 he and V.K.Talwar were called by the Managing Director of the respondent Company and both were asked to sign a letter promising that in case they sign the letter the impugned order of dismissal all be withdrawn. The petitioner refused to sign the said letter. However, V.K.Talwar was forced to sign the letter on 5th January, 1984 after some little modification as V.K.Talwar was in distress on account of continuous illness of his real uncle with whom he was living and on account of acute financial crisis. A copy of the letter signed by V.K.Talwar has been placed on record which inter-alia,states that V.K.Talwar has no relation with the Union as he had disassociated himself from the said Union. The letter also states that the incident which resulted in the making of the order of dismissal of V.K.Talwar was true and they should not have behaved in irresponsible manner and sincere apology was tendered and Managing Director was requested to withdraw the order of dismissal. The petitioner says that the contents of the said letter evidently show that the Union and its members were oppressed by the management by various malpractices.