AMAR NATH Vs. MANAGEMENT OF SWATANTRA BHARAT MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, brings to light yet another unfortunate case where the employer has been able to evade decision of the Industrial Dispute on merks for over 15 years by adopting the devices similar to those noticed by the Supreme Court in D. P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration and Others, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 153.

(2.) Amar Nath, the concerned workman was employed with Swatantra Bharat Mills for the last over 20 years on the date of the reference. The case of the management is that he was showing less efficiency during the period from 1.12.1965 to 13.12.1965. He was called by Shri S.B. Saxena, Shift Incharge at about 12.45 a.m. on 14.12.1965 to explain the reasons for showing less efficiency. When asked the workman pointing out towards Mr. Mathur and Munshi Ram, who were also present, said that "IN SALON SE PUCHHO" when he was advised by the Shift Incharge to behave properly he used filthy abuses for those persons and threatened to beat them out side gate of the mill. Hearing commotion in the shift office, two other workers namely Jagan Nath Mistry and Raghu Nath, Assistant Trainee also came into the office and advised Amar Nath to behave properly. He also abused them and left the office. Thereupon ]he was charge-sheeted. His explanation was not found satisfactory and an enquiry was ordered. The enquiry was conducted by Shri K.K. Bhaglal who found the charge as proved against Amar Nath for misconduct under paragraphs 29 (ii) (f) of the standing orders of the company. Agreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the Management terminated the services of the workman on 17.9.1968. The workman thereupon sought to raise the industrial dispute by filing a statement of claim before the Conciliation Officer. Since no settlement could be arrived at the reference was made to the Labour Court for adjudication. The then Presiding Officer of the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the claim before the Conciliation Officer was made before the notice of demand was served on the management and as such the reference was invalid. He did not record anyother finding on the issues framed by him.

(3.) Thereafter the workman served a notice of demand and raised the industrial dispute. The Government made the reference to the Labour Court to the following effect :-