EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS PRIVATE LTD Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 24 July 1958 eight employees of the Dinamani Press in Madurai refused to do some work which was allotted to them. Thereupon the management framed charges against them, obtained their explanation, held an enquiry and eventually dismissed them. An industrial dispute was raised and on 16 October 1958, the Government of Madras referred two questions for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, With the first of these questions we are not concerned. The second question was whether the termination of the services of the eight workmen who had been dismissed by the Dinamani Press was justified, and if not, what relief the dismissed workers were entitled to. The tribunal found that the dismissal of the first four was justified and that they were not entitled to any relief. So far as individuals 5 to 8 were concerned, the tribunal held that their dismissal was wrongful and that they should be reinstated with one-half of their back wages. The management of the Dinamani Press has come to this Court for the issue of an appropriate writ to quash this order of the tribunal.

(2.) THE first of the four employees we are concerned with is called Raju. The charge against him was that after doing "joining work " from 2-30 to 6-30 in the afternoon of 24 July 1958, he suddenly refused to do that work after 7-30 and that thereby he deliberately delayed the paging of the papers and that he disobeyed the manager's order in that regard. His explanation was in these terms: As you had asked me to do joining work in addition to the composing work which I was doing till now, but you refuse to carry out your assurance that in consideration therefor you would give me enhancement of salary. I did only the composing work which had to be done by me (normally), and I did not refuse to do my work. Further. I have not caused any kind of loss to this concern. I hereby make it known that I have not refused to do the composing work allotted to me by the manager. The delay on account of the failure to do Joining work was not due to me. I am not a joiner.

(3.) THE second individual we are concerned with is a person called Ayyavoo. The charge against him was that when Raju suddenly refused to do the work which he had been normally doing, the foreman asked him to attend to that work so that the paper might not be delayed and that he disobeyed the directions of both the manager and the foreman. The explanation of Ayyavoo is word for word the same as that of Raju though it will be perceived that the charge against him was entirely different.