CHALCHITRA KARMACHARI SANGH Vs. PROPRIETOR REGAL TALKIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the President of the Chalchitra Karmachari Sangh, Gwalior, is for the issue of writ of certiorari for quashing a decision of the Industrial Tribunal arrived at in the following circumstances.

(2.) THE management of Regal Talkies, Gwalior, terminated the services of fourteen of their employees. The petitioner-Sangh then espoused the cause of these employees and raised a dispute contending that the termination of their services was illegal as no charge-sheet was served on any of the employees, no enquiry of any kind was held and no employee was given any notice of retrenchment or paid retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The Government then, in the exercise of its powers under Section 10 (1) of the Act, referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal with the following terms of reference -"whether there is a case for reinstatement of 14 employees mentioned below of Regal Talkies Gwalior. If not are they entitled to payment of retrenchment compensation or any other relief. " the Tribunal, after recording evidence of the parties and hearing them, came to the conclusion that the Regal Talkies, Gwalior was a registered establishment under the Madhya Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1958, (hereinafter called the Establishments Act) and the rights and obligations of the owner of the regal Talkies and his employees were governed by that Act, and as the matter of termination of services of an employee of a registered establishment under that act was specifically dealt with by Section 58 of the said Act, the dispute raised by the employees could not be made subject to the provisions of the Act of 1947 and, therefore, the reference made nnder Section 10 (1) of the Act was not competent. The Tribunal, however, proceeded to enter into the merits of the dispute though, as observed by the Tribunal itself, it was not necessary for it to do so, and found that the services of the four- teen employees were terminated simpliciter; that even if it be assumed that they were dismissed, then their dismissal was justified as they had committed certain acts of misconduct and no enquiry or any show-cause notice was necessary; and that the employees were not entitled to any retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F of the Act.

(3.) SHRI Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that it was not open to the Tribunal to decline to entertain the reference made to it under section 10 (i) of the Act and submit its report and award to the Government; that section 58 of the Establishments Act did not take away the power of the government to refer the dispute it did to the Tribunal under the Act or the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to adjudicate on it; that the dispute which was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication under Section 10 (i) of the Act was not one falling within the purview of Section 58 of the Establishments Act; that Section 58 only made a provision for the service of a notice on an employee before dispensing his services and for enabling him to approach the authority appointed under the payment of Wages Act, 1936, if his services were terminated in contravention of sub-section (1) of Section 58; and that it did not at all provide any relief of reinstatement to an employee wrongfully discharged or dismissed. It was further urged that Section 61 of the Establishments Act expressly preserved the right of the employees to move the Government to have the dispute raised by them adjudicated by a tribunal by making a reference under Section 10 (1) of the Act.