BIPAT BENI Vs. P D SAWARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal by which the Tribunal dismissed the complaints of the petitioner and one other person holding that the complaints did not lie under section 33 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) THE short facts which gave rise to this application need be stated. The respondent No. 2 is a small manufacturer and is doing business in Bombay. The petitioner was one of the servants of respondent No. 2 In or about May 1960 an Industrial dispute between respondent No. 2 and his workmen was referred to the Industrial Tribunal under section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The incident in respect of which the complaint under review was made occurred on 27th July, 1960. After a fruitless complaint before the Labour Officer, this petitioner and another made two applications to the Industrial Tribunal in the month of August, 1960, under section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. He alleged that on 22nd July, 1960, respondent No. 2 assaulted him and dismissed him from service. As the dismissal occurred during the pendency of the industrial dispute before the Tribunal he had a cause of complaint under section 33 (2) of the Act. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondent No. 2 contended that it was the petitioner who assaulted the proprietor and after assaulting him left the premises and thereafter never returned to work. He also contended that the Tribunal could not entertain the complaint inasmuch as the case was not governed by section 33 (2) of the Act. The Tribunal framed a preliminary issue regarding this latter contention and upholding it dismissed the complaint. It is this order that is sought to be challenged in this petition.

(3.) IT may be noted that respondent No. 2 is a manufacturer who admittedly does not employ more than 15 workmen. Consequently the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, does not apply to his establishment. He therefore contended that section 33 (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act does not apply to his establishment. At this stage it is necessary to note that the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, does not necessarily apply to all industrial establishments employing more than 50 workers. Section 13-B provides that the Act would not apply to industrial establishments whose workmen are governed by Fundamental and supplementary Rlues, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appal) Rules, Revised Leave Rlues, Civil Service Regulations and such other similar rules which the appropriate Government similar rules which the appropriate Government may in that behalf notify in the Gazette. Under section 14 the Government is given powers to exempt such industrial establishments as it thinks fit. Under these circumstances Standing Orders may not apply to a large number of industrial may establishments which are not small units and may compete as to the strength of employment with any large unit to which Standing Orders are applicable such as for example, Government establishments, Establishments of Local authorities or Corporations created by the States. Section 33 (2) runs as under;