MANAGEMENT OF AMBIS CAFE Vs. K THANGAVELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent Thangavelu and one Venkatachalam were employees of the petitioner, a proprietary concern, running a hotel with boarding and lodging facilities. The first respondent was one of the permanent employees. On 10th october 1953, there was a quarrel between these two employees when from words they passed to blows. The management, no doubt, came to know about it the same day, and there was even an attempt made, to get the police to intervene to stop the fight. On 11th October 1953 two of the guests of the hotel complained to the management about the inconvenience caused to them by the unedifying quarrel between the first respondent and Venkatachalam. The management called upon both the workmen to explain their conduct, and pending an enquiry into the charges, both were placed under suspension the same day. It was common ground that at that time an appeal was pending before the Labour Appellate tribunal, preferred against the award of the Industrial Tribunal in an industrial dispute between the management and the workers. Therefore the management applied to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act (Act XLVIII of 1950) for permission to dismiss or discharge the two employees Thangavelu and Venkatachalam. The date of that application was given as 26th October 1953 in the order of the Chairman of the central Government Industrial Tribunal, to whom that application was transferred for disposal. Thangavelu in his turn preferred an application on 3rd November 1953, under Section 23 of Act XLVIII of 1950, complaining that he had been dismissed from the service of the management in contravention of Section 22 of the Act.

(2.) BOTH the petitions were heard together. The Chairman, the second respondent in these proceedings, dismissed the application preferred by the management under Section 22 of the Act. He allowed the application preferred by Thangavelu under Section 23 of the Act and directed his reinstatement and the payment to him of what the Chairman called a nominal compensation of Rs. 250.

(3.) THE petitioner applied under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of Certiorari to set aside the orders of the second respondent dated 14th February 1956.