GANESH RAJAN SERVAI ANDVILAS PANDURANG MANJREKAR ANDBHAGWAT BECHAN MISHRA Vs. BENETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITEDAND BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITEDAND BENNET COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts and the law points involved in these three petitions being the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) In these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners-workmen question the legality, validity and propriety of the common order passed by the Industrial Tribunal (second respondent) on 24th June, 1986, in application filed by the first respondent-Company, M/s. Bennett Coleman and Company Limited, Times of India Building, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Bombay-400 001, under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) granting approval of the Companys action of terminating the services of the petitioners.

(3.) The relevant facts are as under : The petitioners were in the permanent employment of the first respondent-company. The petitioner in the Writ Petition No. 2150 of 1986, Ganesh Rajan Servai, was working in the Engineering Department for three years whereas the petitioners Vilas Pandurang Manjrekar and Bhagwat Bechan Mishra, in Writ Petitions No. 2151 of 1986 and 2152 of 1986 were working in the Rotary Department for seven years and four years respectively. They were the members of a union called Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha. According to them, the Company was not well disposed to the said union and, therefore, it adopted a vindictive and victimising attitude towards the members of the said Sabha. By an order dated 23rd February, 1983 the Company terminated the services of the petitioners with effect from the same date for the reasons separately recorded. However, since an industrial dispute was pending before the second respondent-Industrial Tribunal-applications under section 33(2)(b) of the Act were filed by the company before the said Tribunal for approval of their action of terminating the services of the petitioners. It was alleged against the petitioners in the statement of reasons for termination of their services that they had assaulted one Miranda. However, according to the petitioners, before terminating their services neither an opportunity of being heard was granted to them nor was any domestic enquiry held into the alleged charge of misconduct. The petitioners opposed the said applications raising various contentions in their written statements. Thereafter, parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence before the Tribunal. On considering the evidence adduced before him and hearing the parties, the Tribunal passed the impugned order on 24th June, 1986 granting approval of the action of the Company in terminating the services of the petitioners.