THREE LOTUS BEEDI FACTORY Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions have been filed by the management of a proprietary concern (that of the father and the sons) known as the Three Lotus Beedi Factory, Salem. In these two petitions it seeks the quashing by the issue of writs of certiorari of the two orders of the labour court, Coimbatore, by which the dismissal of two of its workmen was set aside and reinstatement ordered.

(2.) WRIT Petition No. 966 of 1957 is concerned with the termination of the service of a maistry by name Abdul Sukur. The dismissal of this workman took place on 23 April 1957. The union raised an industrial dispute in relation to it which was referred by Government to the labour court, Coimbatore, in G. O. Ms. No. 2391, dated 18 July 1957. In answer to the claim of the union challenging the validity of the order by which the services of this maistry were dispensed with, the management, while admitting that there was no charge laid against the worker that no notice was given to him and that there was no enquiry before the order terminating his services contended that the worker, had become too aged, was slack and Blow and that though repeatedly warned he committed mistakes in counting the number of beedies, a task in which he was employed. Notwithstanding these allegations contained in the counter-statement filed by the management no evidence was led before the labour court as regards these matters. The labour court summed up the evidence before it in Para, 5 of its award in these terms: The management did not let in any evidence, oral or documentary. On the workers' side worker himself was examined. He did not let in any documentary evidence. In this evidence he stated that he has put in seven years of service and was getting Rs. 56 monthly salary. On 21 April 1957, according to him after receiving his bonus, the proprietor told him that he has been stopped away from the following day. He reported to the union about abrupt manner in which his services have been terminated without any reason or notice or enquiry. Then it is his version that the matter was reported to the labour officer and though four or five times he and his union went to the labour officer, the management never oared to appear with the result, no settlement could be effected by the officer. He denied that he is sick and that he was not discharging his work satisfactorily. He is aged 45 years and, according to him, there are older people working in this factory. There was no cross-examination and no contra-evidence. The management, for reasons best known to themselves, has not cared to substantiate their contentions put forward in their counter. Though Sri Sundaram, the manager was present, he did not care to cross-examine him. He only represented that the manager will abide by whatever orders passed by the Court. Now, as matters stand at present, I do not see any reason to reject the case of the worker. It has been proved by him that, for no fault of his, he has been stopped away from service. At any rate, he does not appear to be ill or sick. Under such circumstances I hold that the dismissal was unjustified and he should be reinstated with continuity of service.

(3.) ON this state of evidence it appears to me that it is impossible to contend that the tribunal could have reached any other conclusion than that the termination of the service of the employee was not Justified. The allegation contained in the counter-statement by the management was not evidence upon which the labour court could act. On the state of evidence the tribunal reached the only conclusion which it was possible to reach. I consider that there are no merits in this petition which fails and is dismissed.