PUTHUMANA ESTATE Vs. POULOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition Mr. Manuel T. Paikeday, learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam in I. D. No. 9 of 1960 and published in the State Gazette dated 18th October 1960. The ultimate result of the directions given in the said Award is that the workman concerned should be reinstated and that he should also be given a compensation in the sum of Rs. 100/-, in view of the fact that back wages were not being awarded in the favour.

(2.) This Award is attacked by Mr. Paikeday, learned counsel on two grounds. The first ground of attack is that the order or communication issued by the management in this case Ext. A dated 8-2-1960 to the workman concerned has been misinterpreted and misunderstood by the Tribunal as amounting to one of discharge from service. On this aspect Mr. Paikeday urged that the management has not discharged the petitioner from service, but they have discharged him only from the service as a tapper with liberty to offer employment in items of work available with the management. The second and more serious attack against the Award is that the Tribunal has proceeded solely to find out whether the management in this case has conducted a proper and bona fide inquiry before taking action by way of discharge under Ext. A and once the tribunal comes to the conclusion that there has been no such inquiry, it has come to the conclusion that the order evidenced by Ext. A cannot be sustained. This approach made to the decision of the case, according to Mr. Paikeday, is erroneous, because notwithstanding that there has been no inquiry as such by the management, nevertheless, there was a duty and obligation on the part of the tribunal to investigate the question as to whether the action taken by the management is justified in the circumstances of this case and that aspect has not been investigated by the tribunal.

(3.) In order to appreciate the contentions that have been raised by Mr. Paikeday, learned counsel for the petitioner, it is desirable to set out a few facts. There was admittedly an industrial dispute pending before the tribunal as I. D. 33/1959 regarding the bonus and other leave facilities of the workers concerned and there cannot be any controversy that the first respondent the worker concerned was also interested in that industrial dispute. Pending this dispute, it is the case of the first respondent, that the management without taking the permission of the tribunal as required under S.33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, has unjustifiably discharged him from service by the order dated 8-2-60 namely, Ext. A. Alleging this, the first respondent filed a complaint before the Industrial Tribunal on 7-3-60 under S.33(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act.