NAGAPPA BALAYYA MADRASI Vs. SANGLI CITY MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint under S. 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The contentions in the complaint are briefly as follows. There are two groups of scavengers in the Sangli City Municipality. Most of the scavengers who come from the south are members of one particular union which is favoured by a councillor belonging to the majority party in the municipality. The complainant, though a South Indian scavenger, refused to join that union and joined the General Workers' Union and persuaded others also to join it. Ever since then the complaint was harassed by the municipal officers. Some time in September 1959, the complainant was chargesheeted and placed under suspension. He was deliberately not paid subsistence allowance although the municipal rules lay down that such allowance should be paid to suspended employees. Similarly, although the rules lay down that no employee should be suspended longer than three months, the complainant was kept under suspension for nearly five months. During the departmental inquiry hold against the complainant, proper opportunity was not given to the complainant to defend himself. At that inquiry, the chief officer, who was holding the inquiry, assured the complainant that if he tendered an apology, he would be be reemployed. The complainant therefore tendered a written apology. Two months went by and on 9 February, 1960 the complainant was informed that he was dismissed. The complainant contends that the mandatory provisions of S. 33 were not followed by the municipality and that therefore his dismissal must be held to be wrongful. It is prayed that the complainant be directed to be reinstated with all back-wages.

(2.) The municipality contends as follows. The complainant is not a workman concerned in the dispute which is pending before this tribunal. The complainant was not a scavenger but a gutter-coolie. The municipality knows nothing about there being this groups among the scavengers. The municipality does not favour any particular union. There was no reason for the municipality to harass this complainant or any other employee. On 13 September, 1959, the complainant while on duty assaulted the mukadam and a female worker. A report was made to the sanitary committee. That committee placed the complainant under suspension and directed the chief officer to hold an inquiry. All possible opportunity was given to the complainant to defend himself. The chief officer never gave the complainant any assurance of reemployment. He was not competent to give such an assurance. The complainant freely and voluntarily tendered the written apology. The past record of the complainant was taken into consideration by the sanitary committee. The complainant was found to have three convictions under the Prohibition Act. The sanitary committee therefore did not accept the apology and resolved to dismiss him. There was no motive of victimization in the mind of the sanitary committee for dismissing him.

(3.) Before I go into the merits of the case. I shall deal with the preliminary objection raised by the municipality, namely that as the complainant was not a workman concerned in the dispute pending before me, S. 33 has no application. It is not disputed that S. 33(2) is the sub-section which we must need. That sub-section reads as follows :