NATIONAL MACHINERY MANUFACTURERS, LTD. Vs. VYAS (P.D.)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution against respondent who is the industrial tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), calling for the records of the case relating to the award dated 25 August 1960 and for quashing the said award. The -petitioner is a company which manufactures machinery required for the textile Industry. Respondent 2 was in the employment of the petitioner as a watchman ac the petitioner's factory.

(2.) ON or about 5 December 1959 the petitioner served upon respondent 2 a chargesheet charging him with misconduct under model standing Order 22(d) which reads as follows: theft, fraud or dishonesty in connexion with the employer's business or property. The works manager of the petitioner, one J. W. Small, thereafter held an inquiry in respect of the said charge against respondent 2. The inquiry was over on 24 December 1959 and the said Small concluded it with the remarks: the entire evidence and the examination and cross -examination of the witnesses is now over and the decision would be communicated to the person concerned shortly. One would expect that thereafter in normal course the decision of the inquiry would be communicated to respondent 2. No decision was however communicated to respondent 2. The petitioner thereafter addressed its letter dated 2 January 1960, a copy whereof is part of Ex. A to the petition, whereby the petitioner intimated to respondent 2 that the said charge sheet issued against respondent 2 was cancelled.

(3.) THEREUPON respondent 2 filed a complaint before respondent 1 who, as already stated, constituted the industrial tribunal. That complaint was filed under the provisions of Section 33A of the said Act. The complaint alleges that the termination of respondent 2's services was in fact a dismissal under the garb of termination and was merely an attempt to camouflage the dismissal order, that the dismissal was Illegal, that the petitioner was under an obligation to have made an application to the tribunal under Section 33(2) of the said Act, that inasmuch as no such application for approval had been made, there had been a violation of the provisions of the said Act and that, therefore, the petitioner was bound to reinstate respondent 2 with all back -wages, continuity of service and suitable compensation for effecting the said illegal dismissal. A copy of the said complaint is annexed as Ex. B to the petition. It is common ground, though it is not specifically stated in the petition itself, that the proceeding, being Ref. (IT) No. 253 of 1959 in respect of an industrial dispute was pending between the petitioner and its workmen including respondent 2 at the date of the petitioner's said letter dated 2 January 1959 terminating respondent 2's services as the watchman of the petitioner.