VENKATACHALAM K Vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition No. 2096 of 1966 id preferred by three convoy drivers working in the Ashok Leyland, Ltd. , Encore, and Writ petition No. 2531 of 1966 by the Ashok Leyland Workers' and Staff Union, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari allying for the records of the industrial tribunal, Madras, in industrial Dispute No. 39 of 1965 March 1966, and published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 30 March 1966.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that the three petitioners on Writ Petition No. 2096 of 1966 joined respondent 1 company as convoy slivers and subsequently appointed as convoy leaders. Respondent 1 company used to entrust the convoy leader, Passenger and lorry chassis for being delivered to dealers throughout India, and the petitioners had effected delivery in places like Jammu and Kashmir, Allahabad, etc. They were paid a daily batta of Rs. 7, the respondent-company had 62 convoy leaders working under them. The petitioner and the other convoy leaders approached the management for confirming them as permanent workmen and for regularizing their scale of pay, etc Respondent 1 promised to consider the request; has subsequently entrusted the work of delivery of chassis to certain contractors. The petitioners felt aggrieved. as they apprehended that the introduction of the contrary system would throw them out of employment. They raised an industrial dispute, and the dispute was referred by the Government by G. O. Rt. No. 1906, dated 17 September 1965, to the industrial tribunal, Madras. The terms of reference were as fellows: Whether the demand for abolition of contrail system in the sphere of chasse delivery work and absorption of the 62 convoy leaders ad regular workers is justified? The reference was taken up by the industrial tribunal in Industrial Dispute No. 39 of 1965. The tribunal framed the following three issues:

(3.) THE tribunal held that though the convoy leaders were not regular workmen and the tribunal therefore had justification to decide the dispute. It also held that the convoy leaders 62 in number, by themselves could raise the dispute which would be an industrial dispute. So far as these two issues are concerned, there is no dispute as the learned Counsel for the respondent conceded that the tribunal had jurisdiction and the union was competent to raise the dispute. In the circumstance, it is unnecessary to discuss the two issues any further. Regarding the third issue, the tribunal found that the convoy leaders were not justified in demanding the abolition of the contract system in the sphere of chassis delivery work. It also found that the demand of the convoy leaders to be absorbed as regular workers is not justified.