LAWS(DLH)-1994-1-62

MANAGEMENT OF BALDEV SOAP FACTORY Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

Decided On January 16, 1994
MANAGEMENT OF BALDEV SOAP FACTORY Appellant
V/S
DELHI ADMINISTRATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition impugnes the Award dated 24/02/1976, passed by the Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court,Delhi.

(2.) By Notification No. F.24(278)/72-Lab./17751 dated 23/06/1972, the Lt.Governor of Delhi referred under Sections 10(l)(c) and 12 (5) of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947, an industrial dispute existing between the management of thepetitioner and its workmen to the Court for adjudication. The terms of referencecan be reproduced as follows:

(3.) One of the workmen Shri Sobhit Ram, who figures at serial No.7 above, diedon 3/01/1984, as stated in the application moved before this Court (C.M.No.279/86). The legal representatives were brought on record by order dated 6/10/1987. The above said workmen contended in the statement of claim that they werein the employment of the petitioner management and that the petitioner victimizedone of them, namely. Ram Nath and another workman Dudh Nath of its sisterconcern M/s Shukal Soap Mills. Dudh Nath had gone on leave for 20 days w.e.f. 5/07/1971. He, however, returned earlier on 22/07/1971, but he was not allowedto resume his duties. This treatment given to Dudh Nath created apprehension inthe minds of other workmen regarding their future. Accordingly, it is averred, theyprotested to the management but to no effect. The intervention of the Labour Courtalso did not bear any fruit. On 28/07/1971, the workmen of the two concerns camewith joint notice to take back Dudh Nath and stated that if their demand was notconsidered they would go on strike. This notice was followed by a strike noticegiven by the Union on 9/08/1971. The management, however, did not concedeto the demand and the strike commenced from the date as specified on August II,1971. It is further stated that during the period of strike, the management charge-sheeted the concerned workmen for the offence of going on strike. The chargeswere replied to and the petitioner management held an enquiry through theirlawyer representative Shri H.S. Saxena.