HIMCO INDIA PRIVATE LTD Vs. MARUF B M

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution whereby the petitioners has, inter alia, applied for a writ of mandamus to restrain the respondent 1 being the conciliation office from proceedings further with conciliation proceedings further with conciliation proceedings in the matter of seven different demands made in respect of employment and services of respondents 2 to 8 separately be Engineering and General Employees' Union. The facts leading to this petition are as follows : The respondent 2 was in the employment of the petitioner for nearly thirteen years. From 19 May to 2 June, 1960 he was under treatment of a panel doctor under the Employees' State Insurance Scheme. He had obtained two medical certificates from the doctor. The respondent's case is that he had reported for work with final certificate of fitness on 23 June, 1960. The respondent 2 was not allowed to resume work. In connexion with his right to be employed and reinstated in work, the Engineering and General Employees' Union, hereinafter referred to as "the union," made a representation and demand that he must be reinstated. The respondent 1 took this claim into conciliation proceedings and gave intimation in respect thereof to the petitioner being the employer.

(2.) Respondent 3 who has working as a driver with the petitioners from 22 November, 1957 was, after one year's work, transferred as supervisor in the factory with increment in salary. According to the respondent respondent 3 was an active trade union worker who, with the help of others, organized the employees of the the petitioner into a trade union. In January, 1960 he was chargesheeted, but upon his tendering explanation, no action was taken against him. The case of the union and the respondents is that the petitioner continuously made various efforts to persuade the respondent 3 to break the trade union and the respondent 3 did not agree to take such course. The respondent 3 was thereupon again transferred to his post of driver and again chargesheeted on 14 March, 1960 for an alleged offence of refusal to work as driver. By a letter dated 29 March, 1960 his services were terminated. By demand and representation made on his behalf the union challenged the dismissal and applied for reinstatement of the respondent 3 in service.

(3.) The respondent 4 had been in the employment of the petitioner for four years and fell sick from 31 May, 1960 to 13 June, 1960. He was under the treatment of a panel doctor. He was under the treatment of a panel doctor. He reported for work on 14 June, 1960 with a final certificate of fitness, but the petitioner refused to take him on work. According to the union, it was to permissible for the petitioner to terminate the employment of the respondent 4 having regard to the provisions in S. 73 of the Employees' State Insurance Act. In connexion with the termination as above of the service of the respondent 4, the union submitted a demand and representation and claimed reinstatement of the respondent 4.