JADEV MAVJI Vs. MAHARANA MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are all complaints under S. 33A of several workmen employed in Maharana Mills at Porbandar. The complainants in Miscellaneous Application No. 167 of 1956 were dismissed on 14 June 1956 for misconduct alleged to have been committed on the night of 6 June 1956. The complainants in Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 165 and 166 of 1956 were dismissed of 15 June 1956 for misconduct alleged to have been committed on 11 June 1956. The complaints in Miscellaneous Application Nos. 170 of 1956 were dismissed on 16 June 1956 for misconduct alleged to have been committed on 11 June 1956. The complainants in Miscellaneous Application No. 169 of 1956 were dismissed on 16 June 1956 for misconduct of resorting to go-slow tactics from 12 June 1956. It is stated in these complaints that the opponent company had contravened the provisions of S. 33, as during the pendency of Adjudications Nos. 47 of 1954, 91 of 1955 and 102 of 1955 before this tribunal, these complainants were dismissed without the previous permission of this tribunal. It is also alleged that the complainants were dismissed without proper inquiry. They have therefore prayed that they should be reinstated and their wages for the period of their unemployment should be paid to them.

(2.) The opponent company has raised the preliminary objection in all these complaints that the complaints are not maintainable as the three Adjudications Nos. 47 of 1954, 91 of 1955 and 102 of 1955 were withdrawn on 8 June 1956 by both the parties, and as this tribunal had permitted the parties to withdraw the disputes by orders, dated 9 June 1956 and 11 June 1956. As this preliminary objection was not pressed by the opponent company in a similar complaint by some of the dismissed workmen which was registered as Miscellaneous Application No. 168 of 1956 which has been disposed of on merits, these miscellaneous applications were put on the board for regular hearing. I have also heard all the evidence produced by both the parties in Miscellaneous Application No. 167 of 1956 and have adjourned the hearing of evidence in other miscellaneous applications as it was urged strenuously on behalf of the opponent company that I should give my decision first on the preliminary objections. As the preliminary points urged on behalf of the opponent company are identical in all the miscellaneous applications I am disposing them of by a common decision.

(3.) In addition to the preliminary objection urged in the written statement and which is referred to in the preceding paragraph, Sri Nanavaty on behalf of the opponent company raised two other preliminary objections. He urged that I have no jurisdiction to hear these complaints as they were initially made before the industrial tribunal consisting of Sri D. L. Master, and as I was appointed presiding officer of this tribunal by a notification issued in supersession of the notification appointing Shri D. L. Master as the presiding officer. In view of this circumstance, he urged that S. 8 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, did not apply, and I cannot be considered to have been appointed of fill the vacancy occurring in the office of the presiding officer of the industrial tribunal within the meaning of that section. According to him, my appointment must be considered as constitution of a new tribunal under S. 7 and in that view he urged I would have no jurisdiction to hear these miscellaneous applications which were filed before the previous tribunal and which were neither referred to me as industrial disputes or transferred to me for adjudication. He referred to the notifications constituting the tribunal, and appointing Sri D. L. Master and myself as presiding officers. He also referred to the notification whereby certain pending disputes were transferred to me after I was appointed the presiding officer by notification No. LAB. 6-15 (1), dated 27 October 1956.