KAMGAR SABHA Vs. HACL INJECTIONS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, (hereinafter referred to as the Kamgar Sabha) in this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act. The respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Employer) is a public limited company having its office at Ghodbunder Road, Thana. It manufactures fuel injection equipments. On or about 31st October, 1964, the Employer had in its employment about 150 workmen. The workmen of the Employer appears to have become the members of the Kamgar Sabha in or about August, 1963, and the said Kamgar Sabha seems to have been recognised as such Union by the Employer. A dispute are between the Union and Employer in the month of March, 1964, over the termination of services of three workmen. The dispute seems to have been referred to the arbitration of one Shri P.D. Savakar on 11th April, 1964. The arbitrator directed re-instatement of these three workmen. The Employer did there after re-instate these workmen. An agreement also seems to have been entered into between the workmen and Employer before the Conciliation Officer on 31st March, 1964, with regard to certain increments. The disputes arose over the "alleged" reluctance of the Employer to give effect to the said increments. The Employer then is alleged to have introduced a change in the service conditions of the workmen, service of six workmen were terminated by the Employer. The workmen then commenced as sit down strike with effect from 10.00 a.m. on 31st October, 1964. The said strike continued upto 2nd November, 1964. By a notice dated 2nd November, 1964, all the workmen were called upon under a notice to resume work by 10.00 a.m. that day. Negotiations then seem to have started and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour also seems to have intervened, but without any success. Ultimately the Employer resorted to a lock-out. The Employer then called upon the workmen to show cause and explain their conduct in resorting to sit down strike within 48 hours. None of the workmen showed cause. By a cyclostyled letter dated 16th December, 1964, services of all the workmen were terminated on their failure to show such cause. Under the said notice the workmen also were invited to apply for recruitment afresh whose cases will be considered on their own merits. None of the workmen so applied. The Employer then seems to have engaged new workmen and since then has been carrying on its work. It was not disputed before us that now the strength of the workmen employed with the Employer has increased to 350.

(2.) In due course, the Kamgar Sabha raised a demand of re-instatement of all the workmen by a notice dated 12th August, 1965. A board of Conciliation was then constituted by the Government on 12th April, 1967 consisting of a representative of the Labour Commissioner, the Employer and the Kamgar Sabha. All of them asked the Government to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. The dispute was then referred on 25th March, 1968. Under the said reference the dispute as to the re-instatement of 110 workmen was referred to the labour Court. A corringendum was issued by the Government on 25th April, 1969, giving the names of all these 110 workmen. The Presiding Officer of the Third Labour Court ultimately tried the reference and decided it on 26th February, 1974. The Labour Court found that the dismissal of the workmen was unjustified and wrongful. It was found that the action of dismissal was punitive and the same was taken by the Employer without following the required procedure. In stead, however, granting the relief of re-instatement to all these workmen, the Labour Court granted compensation in lieu of re-instatement as detailed in the annexure to his Award. It appears that amongst the total number of 111 workmen in the list, name of one workmen was duplicated. Hence the reference concerned only 110 workmen. He rejected the reference with regard to the workmen at serial Nos. 8, 101 and 109 of the reference, and granted relief only to remaining 107 workmen. The Employer does not seem to have challenged the validity of this Award. The Union representing the workmen, however, has challenged the same in this Special Civil Application.

(3.) Mr. Damania, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, contends that once the dismissal of the workmen was found to be mala fide, unjustified, punitive and wrongful, the Labour Court was bound to follow the normal rule of re-instatement and granting relief of compensation in lieu of re-instatement was not justified, at any rate, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He drew attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in the case of (M.L. Bose and Company (Private) Ltd. Calcutta v. Its Employees) 1961(2) L.L.J. 107 and also some other cases in which mere delay in the adjudication of a dispute or employment of some other workmen by the Employer was considered not to be a sufficient or good ground for refusing re-instatement.