RAMESHWAR Vs. INDUSTRIAL COURT MADHYA PRADESH INDORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Rameshwar was working as a Stripper in the Motilal Agrawal Mills (Private) Limited Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as the employer ). An agreement was arrived at between the employer and the Mazdoor Congress Gwalior, which was the representative union of the employees, on 25th May, 1964, By this agreement, the strength of the Strippers was reduced from four to two. The reduction of strength resulted in the increase of work-load on the remaining two strippers, but their basic wages were also increased from Rs. 31. 50 P. M. to Rs. 48/- P. M. The petitioner after this agreement was transferred to the post of cane-boy. He was, however, not satisfied and challenged his transfer in Labour Case No. 57 of 1964, This case was decided by the Labour Court, Gwalior on 27th April 1965 and the employer was directed to post the petitioner as a Stripper. The petitioner was taken on duty as a Stripper on 29th April, 1966, but was suspended on the same date. After completion of a domestic enquiry, he was dismissed. The petitioner filed a criminal complaint alleging that the employer with a view to victimise and punish the petitioner started harassing him and gave him two warnings at 10-15 A. M. and 12-30 P. M. on the very first day he joined his duty as Stripper; that the petitioner was punished by reason of the fact that he obtained an award against the employer; that his dismissal was in contravention of section 83 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act; and that the employer was liable to punishment under section 86 of the Act. This complaint was decided by the Labour Court Gwalior on 3rd August, 1966 in favour of the petitioner and the Managing Director of the Mills was fined a sum of Rs. 500/under section 86 for contravention of Section 83 (1) (c ). It was also ordered under section 85 that the petitioner be reinstated. The employer then went up in appeal before the Industrial Court, Indore which was allowed on 2nd November, 1966 and the order of the Labour Court punishing the employer and reinstating the petitioner was set aside. Aggrieved by this order in appeal, the petitioner has now come up under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner prays that the order of the Industrial Court be quashed and that of the Labour Court be restored.

(2.) IT is first contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Industrial court had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of reinstatement passed under section 85 of the Act. The learned counsel points out that although an order of punishment under Section 86 is made appealable under Section 65, an order under Section 85 reinstating the employee is not appealable and hence even if the industrial Court had jurisdiction to set aside the order of the Labour Court as regards the order punishing the employer, it had no jurisdiction to set aside the petitioner's reinstatement under Section 85 of the Act.

(3.) THE point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner relates to the construction of Sections 65, 83, 85 and 86 of the Industrial Relations Act. The sections so far as relevant read as follows: