BAGCHI Vs. JUDGE, SECOND INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by P.M. Bagchi and Co. (Private), Ltd., challenging the legality and validity of an industrial award made by the Second Industrial Tribunal of West Bengal on 24 April 1956, directing six employees of the petitioner company to be reinstated in service with back pay and allowances for the entire period from the date of their dismissal to the date of their reinstatement.

(2.) MR . De, learned Counsel for the petitioner, challenges this award on three basic grounds. His first ground is that the award is bad on the face of it. It is erroneous on the face of the record. In support of his argument, he points to the findings of the tribunal that the enquiry made by the company's enquiring officer was wrongly held by the tribunal to be against the rules of natural justice. Now, in this case, the fact is that the enquiry was held by the management. Notices were Issued on these six employees requesting them to be present at the enquiry. In spite of service of notices upon them, the employees refused to come. The proceedings of the enquiry held on 13 September 1955, are annexed to the petition. They show first that the secretary of the union refused to participate in the enquiry. Opportunity was, therefore, given to these employees to appear on 21 September 1955. They again failed to appear and the proceedings were postponed till 26 September 1955. Fresh notices were served on those employees and it was stated that in case of their failure to attend on that date, the enquiry would be conducted in their absence. On 26 September 1955, when after repeated notices to appear the workmen failed to appear, the enquiry was conducted ex parte in their absence. The tribunal came to hold that this was against the principles of natural justice. If persons notified to appear fail to appear after repeated opportunities are given then the proceeding has to be conducted in their absence and in such a cage it is not a violation of the principles of natural justice at all. The Supreme Court points out in the Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills, Ltd. v. Pt. Ram Swarup and Ors.1957 -I L.L.J. 17 at 24. If full and free opportunity was given to the respondents to present themselves at the enquiry and defend themselves, it could not be said that the enquiry was anything but fair.

(3.) THE award was also challenged on the ground that there were other errors on the face of the record. One is that the tribunal makes the mistake of considering N. Das Gupta, the factory superintendent, as a witness on behalf of the management. The tribunal's own record shows that this N. Das Gupta was called as the union's witness. In fact, he was P. W. 1 for the union. The summons calling him as a witness is also annexed to the petition and shows that he was only appearing as a witness for the union. But the tribunal says: It is interesting to note that in this case save and except Sri N. Das Gupta, factory superintendent, no other witness was examined on behalf of the management.