M/S. INDIA ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., KANPUR Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (IV) U.P. LUCKNOW AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition was last heard on Sept. 20, 1985 and a judgment, dismissing the petition, was dictated in open Court that day. More, however, that judgment was signed and Sealed, an oral request was made by the counsel for the petitioner that he wished to argue the matter further. This was followed by an application with a prayer to that effect which was presented before me on Sept. 27, 1985. The petition was, therefore, directed to be listed for further hearing with the consent of the counsel tor the respondents. Today, the petition has been taken up in the revised list. Sri V.B. Singh, appearing for the petitioner, has argued the matter further.

(2.) The challenge in the petition is to an order passed by Industrial Tribunal (IV), U.P. at Lucknow on July 19, 1976. This was passed in Misc. Case No. 10 of 1975 arising out of an application under Sec. 6-F of the U. P Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By this order, the Tribunal has directed the petitioner to pay to 23 of its workmen, who are arrayed as respondents no. 2 to 24, a sum equivalent to three months, two months and 15 days wages to the permanent, probationer and Substituted workmen respectively.

(3.) The services of these respondents had been terminated by the petitioner by an order of March 23, 1974. The workmen bad gone on illegal strike with effect from Feb. 19, 1975. They refused to return to work in spite of the persuasion of the petitioner. After the order of termination, an application under Sec. 6-F was made by the workmen before the Industrial Tribunal. Their case was that there was a pending reference in regard to some dispute between the workmen and the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal during the pendency whereof the services of the workmen had been dispensed with in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 6-E of - the Act. In the complaint it was, inter alia, alleged that the violation of Sec. 6-E was on account of termination of their services without the management Seeking approval of the Tribunal for it. It was also said that no charge - sheet had been issued to any of the workmen nor was any opportunity of defence given. It was prayed that suitable orders be passed in favour of the workmen.