DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK Vs. ITS EMPLOYEES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and the circumstances which have led up to it are briefly these. The petitioner is a District Co-operative Bank at Gorakhpur. Respondents 3, 4 and 5 were its employees. According to the petitioner, respondent 3 was an accountant and manager while the other two respondents 4 and 5 were temporary servants. There being some charges against respondent 3, he was suspended pending enquiry into those charges. The services of respondents 4 and 5 were terminated. There is at Gorakpur a union known as the Uttar Pradesh bank employees' union. It took up the dispute which had arisen between the petitioner and respondents 3, 4 and 5 in connexion with their employment and grot it referred to the regional conciliation officer for conciliation. The attempt at conciliation did not fructify. Under Section 4K of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, a reference was made in respect of that dispute to the labour court at Gorakhpur which was presided over by one Khanna. The Court issued notice to the petitioner requiring it to appear on 2 January 1960 for filing written statement and other documents. On that date, an application signed by the petitioner's managing director was presented praying for adjournment. The adjournment was Opposed on behalf of the union but the labour court granted four days adjournment on payment of Rs. 50 as cost. The case was thus adjourned to 6 January 1960. On that date, an application signed by the managing director A.P. Vermah was presented to the labour court by one A.K. Maulik who claimed to be an officer of the petitioner. A question was raised as to whether Maulik was an authorized representative of the petitioner. Respondents 3 to 5 said that they did not recognize him. The petitioner's case is that when this situation arose, the labour court directed Maulik to go back and get a written authority. He went back but before he could come back, an application was made by the representative of the union praying that no postponement should be granted. This application was allowed and ex parte order was passed. When, therefore, S.K. Sinha, the accountant of the petitioner, came to the Court with the written authority of the managing director, he found that it had already been ordered that the case was to proceed ex parte. On 15 January 1960, the petitioner filed an application supported by an affidavit for the setting aside of the ex parte order and the restoration of the case. It may be noted that by that time the case had not been decided and the award had not been made. This application for restoration and the setting aside of the ex parte order was again opposed on behalf of the union and was disposed of by the labour court by an order which reads like this: I have heard parties and discussed each point of employer's application. I find no substance and reject the application for restoration.

(2.) This order was written on the back of the objection which the representative of the union filed against the application for restoration. This writ petition was then filed with the prayer that the orders of the labour court, dated 6 January 1960 and 15 January 1960, be quashed and that a mandamus be issued directing the labour court to consider the application of the petitioner for the restoration of the case. On 28 January 1960, the labour court made an award in the case which was published in the Gazette on 27 February 1960. The writ petition was thereupon amended and grounds were added challenging the validity of the order of reference, dated 11 December 1959 and the award, dated 28 January 1960. The prayer in the petition was also amended and both the reference and the award were also sought to be quashed by a writ of certiorari.

(3.) The petition is opposed on behalf of the respondents on the ground that the entire proceedings before the labour court were valid and the ex parte order as well as the order refusing the restoration of the case were justified. It is also urged that the reference and the award cannot be questioned on any valid grounds.