ABDUL SALAM Vs. ABDUL KHALIK ABDUL SAMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also dispose of Miscellaneous Petition No. 31 of 1959.

(2.) THESE two petitions are by the managing partner of a Public Transport Company, Seoni, who is an employer as defined in Section 2, (11) of the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947. The respondent Abdul Khalik in Miscellaneous Petition No. 30 of 1959 was employed by the company as a conductor. Bashiruddin, respondent No. 1, in Miscellaneous Petition No. 31 of 1959 was also similarly employed. Abdul Khalik's services were terminated from 1st June, 1957 after giving him one month's notice. Bashiruddin's services were also dispensed with on 24th March, 1957 and he was paid one month's salary in lieu of notice. Thereupon, the two conductors filed applications under Section 16 of the Act before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh, Jabslpur, for reinstatement claiming back wages. The Assistant Labour Commissioner found that the services of the conductors had been terminated but that the orders terminating their services were not legal inasmuch as they were passed by the company in violation of the principles of natural justice which it was bound to follow in the absence of any standing orders. Accordingly he made orders directing the reinstatement of the conductors and payment to them of wages from the date of the termination of their services to the date of reinstatement. The petitioner then preferred revision petitions before the State Industrial Court. The learned Judge of the Industrial Court took the view that in the circumstances in which the orders terminating the services of the conductors were passed and having regard to the replies filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Labour Commissioner in reply to the applications Under Section 16 of the Act, the orders terminating the services of the conductors were really orders of their dismissal; that they were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice; that they were not in accordance with law; that under Item No. 3 of Schedule II of the Act an action of dismissal could not be taken against the conductors without giving them notices under Section 31 of the Act and that as this was not done the orders of dismissal were also in contravention of Section 31. On this reasoning the orders of the Assistant Labour Commissioner reinstating the conductors were upheld by the Industrial Court. The petitioner has now invoked Article 226 of the Constitution and he prays that the orders of the Assistant Labour Commissioner re- instating the conductors and the decision of the Industrial Court upholding them be quashed by the issuance of appropriate writs or directions.

(3.) SHRI Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that though the respondent-conductors were discharged from service because they had permitted overloading of their buses in contravention of the permits and though the petitioner in his replies to the applications under Section 16 loosely stated that the conductors had been dismissed from service, the orders discharging the conductors from service were nonetheless orders terminating their services and not orders of their dismissal from service; and that these orders were not hit either by Section 42 of the Act or by Section 31 read with entry No. 3 of Schedule II of the Act. Learned counsel placed reliance on Provincial Transport Service v. Assistant Labour Commissioner, Nagpur, 1957 Nag LJ 569, and a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Hiralal v. The State Industrial Court, M. P. Indore, Misc. Petn. No. 374 of 1958, D/- 14-9-1959 (MP ).