ARYA BHAVANMADRAS Vs. M S NARAYANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of Rajagopalan J. dismissing a petition filed by the appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the Chairman, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Madras, dated 23-3-1956 in the following circumstances. The appellant is the management of a Restaurant carrying on business in Madras under the name and style of Arya Bhavan. In 1953, the appellant dismissed one of its employees, one Janardhana Bhatt on the ground that he was engaged in a scuffle with a customer of the restaurant and assaulted him in the course of the quarrel. This led to a reference by the Government of Madras of an industrial dispute between the workers and the management of Arya Bhavan, Madras with respect to the justification of the dismissal of the said Janardhan Bhatt. The workers were represented by the City Hotel Workers" Association. The Industrial Tribunal made an award that the dismissal of Janardhana Bhatt was unjustified and directed that he should be reinstated with back wages from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement. The Government duly notified the award by their order dated 27-1-1954. Against this award the appellant preferred an appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Madras on 25-2-1954. While the appeal was pending the appellant dismissed on 29-4-1954 the contesting respondent, M. S. Narayana Rao, on the ground that he was found guilty of stealing. Thereupon the respondent filed an application before the Labour Appellate Tribunal under S. 23 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. That application was eventually disposed of by the Chairman, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Madras by his order dated 23-3-1956. Before the Appellate Tribunal objection was raised by the management that the respondent was not entitled to file an application as he was not a "workman concerned" in the appeal but this objection was overruled. The Appellate Tribunal went into the merits of the case also and held that the dismissal of the respondent was not justified. The Tribunal, therefore, directed the management to reinstate the respondent and pay him arrears of wages. To quash this order the appellant filed a petition from which this appeal arises. The main ground taken before Rajagopalan J. before whom the petition came on for final disposal was that the respondent was not entitled to file any application as he would not be a "workman concerned" in the appeal pending before the Appellate Tribunal in the matter of Janardhana Bhatt. Rajagopalan J., held against the appellant. hence this appeal.

(2.) Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 (Act XLVIII of 1950), runs thus:

(3.) There may be cases in which it would be easy to hold that certain workmen are not concerned in the pending appeal, arising out of a particular dispute. It has been held for instance that where a dispute relates to the payment of bonus for a particular year, say, 1954-55, the workmen who were employed subsequent to that period would not be "workmen concerned" in the appeal relating to the question of bonus for that year. Vide Kalachan Talukdar v. Standard Vacuum Oil Co., 1956-1 Lab LJ 616 and also Shankar Rao Domajee v. Model Mills Ltd., Nagpur, 1956-1 Lab LJ 433. It is equally clear that if a particular company has several branches dealing with different categories of business, workmen employed in one department would not be concerned in a dispute between the management and the workers of quite a different department. In Bathi Bhura v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd., 1954-1 Lab LJ 674, it was held that workmen employed in certain quarries (mines) would not be workmen concerned in a dispute between the workers in a cement factory and the management of that factory though the same company was the proprietor of both the cement works and the quarries. A similar instance of such a case is found in Jawahar Mills Ltd., Salem v. Subbarayan, 1954-1 Lab LJ 248.