VASANT GOPAL GURAV Vs. F M LYLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There was a dispute between the workers of the textile mills on the one hand and the Millowners' Association on the other in respect of the bonus payable to the textile workers for the year 1962. After negotiations this dispute was settled and an award in respect of the settlement was made. This was announced on 12 December, 1963. In some mills there were strikes and in some mills tension had also developed. There was strike in Sayaji Mills, Ltd., on 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 December, 1963. It appears that there were negotiations and it is said that the then Labour Minister intervened and asked the workers to resume work in the striking mills on obtaining an assurance from the Millowners' Association that the workers will not be victimized unless they were responsible for either causing violence or inciting violence. On 17 January, 1964, five of the workers in this mill were served with chargesheet for misconduct under standing orders 21(b) and 21(c), the first being for illegal strike and the second for inciting illegal strike. The date for inquiry fixed was 20 January, 1964. On the date of the inquiry the workers applied for adjournment which the inquiry officer refused to grant. It appears that thereafter the workers continued to remain present. After the inquiry was completed the inquiry officer gave a finding that these five workers were responsible for misconduct under both the standing orders, i.e., 21(b) and 21(c). Having regard, however, to the past clean record of these workers, he directed that they be discharged from service with thirteen days' wages in lieu of notice. The workers then took up the matter as an industrial dispute under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and requested the Government to refer the matter to the industrial court under S. 73 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act which it did.

(2.) The industrial court held that the inquiry was not mala fide and that there was no victimization. It further observed that there was no proof of incitement and violence. It said that under the standing orders the orders of discharge made against these workers could not be said to be illegal and improper. It, therefore, rejected the demand for reinstatement.

(3.) In this petition much reliance has been placed on the finding of the industrial court that there was no proof of incitement of violence and violence. It is said that during the negotiations the Labour Minister had assured that except in the case of violence, the workers would be reinstated. It was, therefore, said that the order of discharge was invalid. It was secondly contended that in any event for these misconducts the orders can be of suspension or of dismissal but not of discharge with wages.