PROVINCIAL TRANSPORT SERVICES Vs. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Provincial Transport Services challenging the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Nagpur, dated July 19, 1957, over -ruling the petitioner's contention that the Assistant Labour Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the application made under Section 16 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, by respondents Nos. 2 to 4.

(2.) THE relevant facts are briefly these : Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and Nago Fakira, the husband of respondent No. 4, who is now dead, were in the service of the Provincial Transport Services, Nagpur. An enquiry was held against these three persons on a charge of misconduct. It was found by the General Manager that these persons were guilty of misconduct, He, however, ordered that their services should be terminated by giving each of them one month's salary in lieu of notice. Thereafter, these persons made a joint application to the Assistant Labour Commissioner alleging that they were wrongfully dismissed from service and that they were thus entitled to reinstatement. According to the petitioner, the Assistant Labour Commissioner had no jurisdiction to deal with the application of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and the husband of respondent No. 4 because they were not dismissed from service or discharged from service by way of punishment but their services had been terminated by giving them one month's salary in lieu of notice. It would appear that the actual contention of the petitioner was that the termination of services of these three persons was in pursuance of a term of the contract of employment, though it is conceded that this has not been put in such clear terms in the objection to the jurisdiction of the Assistant Labour Commissioner raised on behalf of the petitioner. We may point out that even before the Assistant Labour Commissioner three documents were filed which are said to be copies of the contracts of service entered into between the petitioner on the one hand and the employees concerned on the other. It may be that because the point was not raised in very clear terms that the Assistant Labour Commissioner did not apply his mind to it. Another point which was taken on behalf of the petitioner before the Assistant Labour Commissioner was that the latter had no jurisdiction to go into the merits of the order of the General Manager in which he gave his finding that each of the three persons was guilty of misconduct. According to the Assistant Labour Commissioner he could go into the merits of the question for ascertaining whether the action taken against the employees was in accordance with law or otherwise.

(3.) IT is common ground that no standing orders have yet been sanctioned in respect of the petitioner's undertaking, and so if there was any dismissal, discharge or removal, the question for decision would be whether it was in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act. We may point out that the provisions of the Act would, in this connection, mean Section 42 of the Act and Entry No. 3 in Schedule II of the Act.