ROSE LOCK FACTORY Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS and the connected writ petition are directed against the same award. Writ Petition No. 1007 of 1066 has been filed by the employers and Writ Petition No. 2246 of 1966 has been filed by the workmen. Both can be conveniently disposed of by a single Judgment.

(2.) ON 15 April 1965 the State Government referred the following matter of dispute for adjudication to the labour court, Allahabad: Whether the employers kept the workmen, named In the annex are, out of employment with effect from 14 July 1964, and hare subsequently terminated their services with effect from 13 July 1964 legally and/or Justifiably? If not, to what relief are the workmen concerned entitle? In the annexure nineteen workmen were mentioned. They had been dismissed by the employers with effect from 18 July 1964 on the ground of fomenting and resorting to an illegal strike from 14 July 1964. The labour Court held that the managerial enquiry violated the principles of natural justice, because no genuine attempt was made to serve the ohargesheet and to give the workmen due notice. Then, It examined the question whether the termination was mala fide and with a view to victimize the workmen for trade union activities, or whether the workmen were guilty of resorting to an Illegal strike. On a review of the evidence led before It, the labour Court found that there was no victimization and the workmen concerned had resorted to an Illegal strike. The Court then considered the question as to whether the punishment of dismissal could be justified. It held that these nineteen workmen had taken a leading part la the strike and that they were the ringleaders. It held that for the prominent part played by them In sponsoring and resorting to the Illegal strike, the employers were justified In awarding the punishment of dismissal. The Court then considered issue 6 which related to the relief to which the workmen were entitled. The Court held that since the order of dismissal was not preceded by a proper enquiry, the order of dismissal will operate from the date the award becomes enforceable. For the period Intervening the order of dismissal passed by the employers and the date the award becomes enforceable, the concerned workmen would be entitled to their wages. For this conclusion the labour Court gave out additional reason, namely, that a bonus case was pending before the conciliation board on 18 July 1964 and the order of dismissal was passed, without obtaining approval, and as such In contravention of 3. 6e (2) (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act. The labour court also found that six of the concerned workmen had already been reemployed and, therefore, they were not entitled to any relief. It ultimately decided that the other thirteen workmen were entitled to their wages till the date the award becomes enforceable, though they are not entitled to reinstatement.

(3.) THE employers have challenged the ultimate finding that the order of dismissal will operate from the date the award becomes enforceable. It has been submitted that the labour Court having found that the order of dismissal was justified, erred in law In substituting for it a fresh order of dismissal. The finding that the order of dismissal was in contravention of Section 6e (2) (b) has also been challenged.