SRIDHARAN MOTOR SERVICE Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by the management of Sridharan Motor Service, Attur, in Salem district, for the issue of an appropriate writ to quash the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, dated 24 December 1957, and made in Petition No. 5 of 1957 in I. D. No. 10 of 1957.

(2.) THE relevant facts are these. On 15 February 1957 the management of Sridharan Motor Service and the workers in that service submitted a Joint petition to the Government of Madras asking that various matters mentioned in the petition be referred to adjudication. On 20 May 1957 the Government passed an order referring those questions for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras. On 31 May 1957, the management revised their time-tables in such a manner that it prejudicially affected the workers in various ways. The position that resulted is thus summarized in the order of the industrial tribunal: It will be seen from the list that in the case of some of the workers, while the working hours per day were maintained the same, the number of working days in June was increased. It will be also seen that several of the drivers and conductors, very much more than in May, were put on spare duty, thereby depriving them of their daily batta which they could claim if they were on active duty. It will further be seen that in the case of several of the employees they were given night halts at stations other than their residential places whereas under the agreement in forge between parties, the night halts should be, as far as possible, in their respective residential places. It cannot, therefore, be denied that in June there was increase in the workload. Further it will be seen from that list that in the case of most of these employees the spread-over hours were much more than that fixed by the statute, namely, 10 1/2 hours. In consequence the workers went on strike on 5 June 1957. The workers contended that it was a case of lockout effected by the management. The tribunal, however, has found that what took place was not a lockout but a strike. The tribunal stated its conclusions on this aspect of the matter in these terms: On the evidence it is clear that the trouble in the various stations on the morning of the 5 June was due to the strike resorted to by the workers and not lockout by the management. Indeed, during the arguments, the learned Counsel for the union could not seriously contend that on the evidence any other view is possible. The management thereupon framed charges against several individuals who had gone on strike and entrusted the enquiry to an advocate. The workers, however, withdrew from the enquiry and refused to participate in it. Thereafter the management dismissed the workers against whom charges had been framed and then filed an application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the tribunal for approval of the action which it had taken. The tribunal approved the action of the management in respect of two of the workers who had been found guilty of having collected fare from passengers without issuing tickets to them. It, however, refused to approve the action of the management as regards the other workers. The management has, therefore, come to this Court for the issue of an appropriate writ to Quash the order of the tribunal.

(3.) IT seems to me that the tribunal was in error on a number of points. It is common ground that the bus service in question is a public utility service within the meaning of Section 22 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. So far as is here material, Section 22 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act runs as follows: