GUNGARAM TEA CO LTD Vs. 2ND LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks appropriate writs and orders directing the respondents to set aside, revoke, cancel or rescind an order made on May 19, 1965 and also to forbear from enforcing or giving effect to the same,

(2.) BY an order dated July 24, 1961 an industrial dispute between the petitioner and some of its workmen at the tea garden was referred to the 5th Industrial Tribunal, west Bengal. During the pendency of this adjudication some of the workmen of the petitioners in the said Tea Estate are alleged to have committed various acts of misconduct warranting their dismissal. Such misconduct, it is alleged, was not connected with the pending dispute which was awaiting adjudication.

(3.) ON or about August 21, 1964 charge-sheets were Issued to the workmen involved including the respondents nos. 2 to 5 in this petition. Some of the workmen refused to accept the charge-sheets and thereupon the same were served upon them by registered post. By the charge-sheets the workmen were called upon to explain by 7 A. M. on August 25, 1964 to the Manager of the petitioner's Tea Garden why they should not be dismissed or otherwise punished. The respondents were also informed by the charge-sheets that an enquiry into their cases would be held at the Garden office at 7 A. M. on August 25, 1964. The workmen, including the respondents 2 to 5, however, failed and neglected to appear at the enquiry which was held on September 14 and 15, 1964 by the Manager of the Tea Garden. Witnesses were examined in respect of the charges framed by the petitioner and on conclusion of this domestic enquiry the Manager of the Tea Garden who was the enquiry officer gave his finding to the effect that the workmen including the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 herein were guilty of the offences and/or misconduct they had been charged with. On the basis of the findings of the enquiry Officer mentioned above, the petitioner duly dismissed the workmen including respondents Nos. 2 to 5 hereinafter serving proper notice on them and offering each of them one month's wages in compliance with the requirement of Sec. 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Thereafter six applications were made by the petitioner in respect of the said workmen under sec. (33) (2) (b) of the Act before the 5th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. These applications were transferred by the said Tribunal for disposal to the respondent No 1. Thereafter certain proceedings took place and ultimately at the suggestion of the lawyer for the respondents the hearing of the said applications under sec. 33 (2) (b) of The Act was fixed at Darjeeling. Between October 7 1964 and April 15, 1965 the lawyers of the parties appeared before the Tribunal and made various submissions with regard to further hearing of the applications. It appears from the order sheet, however, that on April 19, 1965, the company's lawyer and Manager were present but no one appeared on behalf of the Union. When on the next day the case was taken up for hearing, the company's lawyer was present but the Union representing the workmen did not attend. On April 21, 1965 again the company's lawyer was present but the lawyer of neither the respondent workmen nor the Union attended before the Tribunal. Some of the witnesses of the petitioner were examined on this date. On the following day, namely, April 22, 1965, petitioner's lawyer was present and another witness on behalf of the petitioner was examined. On April 23, 1965, the petitioner's lawyer was present but neither the workmen nor the Union cared to attend before the Tribunal. The Manager of the petitioner Tea Garden was examined and certain documents were proved. On April 23, 1965 the Tribunal recorded an order that the evidence was closed and directed the matter to be put up on May 3, 1965 for orders. It appears from the order sheet that on April 27, 1965, one D. L. Sen Gupta appeared for the Union and the workmen and made certain submissions and on the same day one Anil Banerjee filed a petition for giving an opportunity to the respondent workmen so be heard and on May 19, 1965 the tribunal recorded an order that the Secretary of the Union had filed a petition for hearing the ease afresh and also noted that this petition for fresh hearing was seriously opposed but it went on to hold that the prayer made on behalf of the Union should be allowed for ends of justice.