BHAGWATI PRASAD TEWARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus commanding respondent No. 1 to refer the dispute between the petitioner and his employer to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that the respondent had arbitrarily refused to make the reference under Section 10(1) of the Act.

(2.) The Petitioner's case, inter alia, was that the petitioner was convicted in a criminal case. The appeal against the conviction was also dismissed. Consequently he had suffered the punishment of imprisonment. The services of the petitioner were terminated by letter dated July 12, 1974 on account of his conviction under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. In view of the provisions of Chapter XIX of the First Bipartite Settlement of October 1986 and Section 10 of the Banking. Regulations Act, 1949 without any notice. According to the petitioner, the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be termed as moral turpitude which exposes an employee to termination in view of para 19(2) of the said settlement. An enquiry was conducted in respect of the matter by the Enquiry Officer which has not been concluded whereas the petitioner was confirmed on June 1, 1972 though the alleged incident upon which he was convicted took place in March, 1970. Challenging the said termination, the petitioner had moved a writ petition being Writ petition No. 6582 of 1974 before this Court which was disposed of on February 8, 1977. By the said order, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy with liberty to the petitioner to seek remedy under the provision of the Act. The cause of the petitioner thereupon was espoused by the Union of which he was member and a reference was sought for under Section 10(1) before respondent No. 1 for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal. By order dated April 28, 1978, the respondent No. 1 refused to refer the said matter for adjudication to the Tribunal. Against this order, the aggrieved petitioner has moved the present writ petition.

(3.) Under the scheme of the Act, originally reference could be made under Section 10 only when the cause was espoused by the Union and it concerned a number of employees. By introduction of Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1965 introducing Section 2-A, an individual dispute in case of termination of Service could also be subject- matter of reference, even though not espoused through the union or that does not concern a number of employees.