K P KSHATRIYA Vs. KHANDELWAL UDYOG LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenges the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour refusing to make reference with regard to the dispute raised by the petitioner and the Union in regard to his reinstatement and back-wages.

(2.) The petitioner was employed as a workman with respondent No. 1. On 8-5-1975 a show cause notice was served on him in regard to certain acts of misconduct. Charges were framed on 9-5-1975 and 11-5-1975. On 16-5-1975 the petitioners was informed that an enquiry will be held into the charges by one Dholaklia on 22-5-1975. It appears that all the workmen employed by the employer went on strike against his act of holding enquiry by the employer against the petitioner. On 22-5-1975 the petitioner did not appear at the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer recorded evidence of the witnesses produced before him and submitted his report to the employers. On the strength thereof, dismissal order was passed on 20-6-1976. The Union raised a dispute with regard to his dismissal claiming reinstatement and backwages. As there was no response from the employer, the Canciliation Officer was approached by the Union. On 15-10-1975 the dispute was admitted in canciliation. Preliminary settings were held on two occasions. Union complained that copies of the enquiry papers and the dismissal order were not given to the employees. It appears that the Union did not remain present thereafter before the Canciliation Officer. On 24-11-1975 the Canciliation Officer submitted his failure report. The impugned order was passed on 20-1-1976 refusing to make any reference on the ground that the principles of natural justice were found to have been complied with. It is the validity of this order that is challenged in this petition.

(3.) Mr. Narayan B. Shatye, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, contends that after introduction of section 11-A in the Industrial Disputes Act in 1972, the employees protected by the Industrial Disputes Act are entitled not only to have the quantum of punishment reviewed by the Industrial Tribunal but also find as to the misconduct reappraised by the Tribunal. The grievance of Mr. Shatye, therefore, is that the Deputy Commissioners view that mere compliance with the principles of natural justice was sufficient to refuse to make reference is based on irrelevant grounds and is not legally correct.