GUJARAT INSECTICIDES LIMITED Vs. J A MAKWANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. M. S. Mansuri learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 waives service of Rule on behalf respondent No. 1.

(2.) Gujarat Insecticides Ltd., has filed the present petition to challenge the order passed by the Member of Industrial Tribunal, Baroda on 13-1-1998 in Complaint Application No. 75 of 1997 in Refs. (IT) Nos. 87 of 1993 and 131 of 1992.

(3.) The respondent No. 1 J. A. Makwana is a workman of the present petitioner and he is also the General Secretary of G.I.L. Employees Union, i.e., the union of the workmen of the present petitioner. The petitioner has initiated departmental proceedings against the respondent No. 1 for his alleged misconduct committed by him on 20-7-1997 at 10-00 a.m. After initiating the said departmental inquiry a suspension order is also passed on 5-8-1997. The respondent made a complaint before the Industrial Tribunal, Baroda before whom Refs. (IT) No. 87 of 1993 and (IT) No. 131 of 1992 are pending on account of collective disputes raised by the workmen. A dispute was raised by the present respondent regarding the appointment of inquiry officer in the inquiry proceedings initiated against him and in the said reference, he had also prayed for the stay of the departmental inquiry proceedings till the decision of the said reference. In this complaint (IT) No. 75 of 1997, the respondent raised a contention that on account of the suspension order present petitioner is preventing him from attending the office which is situated within the administrative building of the petitioner company and thereby prevented him from functioning as officebearer of the workers' union. The union is also a recognised union. The claim of the respondent was resisted by the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal on two grounds - (1) that there is no office of the union within the premises of the company and (2) that in view of the suspension of the present respondent as per the Standing Orders, he is not to enter the company premises and there is no breach of any service conditions of the present respondent and therefore, said complaint could not be entertained by the Industrial Tribunal.