LAWS(CAL)-1969-6-48

GAYADIN RAM Vs. RAM PADA ROY AND OTHERS

Decided On June 03, 1969
GAYADIN RAM Appellant
V/S
RAM PADA ROY AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of B N. Banerjee, J., dated 6.3.68, by which his Lordship made absolute in part the Rule obtained by the Respondents before us (Rama Pada and Ors.) in Matter No. 30/61 filed on 2.2.61.

(2.) The petitioners in that Matter are workmen under Gayadin Ram (the appellant before us), carrying on business under the name and style Hindusthan Iron and Steel Co, (hereinafter referred to as "the Company"). There was a dispute between the parties regarding irregular payment of wages, which was settled through conciliation, as per annexure-A, dated 12.6.57. On 15.6.57 the Company suspended Sobodh Guha, the Vice President of the Workmen's Union and up to 21.9.57, went on "refusing employment" to 35 other workmen and the dispute arising out of such non-employment was referred, by the Govt, of West Bengal, for adjudication, to the Fourth Industrial Tribunal, which resulted in an Award, dated 10.4.58. by which the Tribunal directed reinstatement of 26 out of the 35 workmen, including Subodh Guha. The Company moved this Court under Art. 226 and got the Award modified in that the order of reinstatement except in favour of Subodh Guha was quashed.

(3.) The petitioner-Respondent's case is that as a result of the aforesaid proceedings, the Company started a campaign of victimisation against the workmen and refused employment to different batches of workmen on different dates and of them served chargesheets on 26 workmen, asking them to show cause why they should not be dismissed for the misconduct of staging an illegal "stay-in-strike" and preventing other willing workers to join their work on 27.1.58 (vide p. 4) of the paper-book). This was followed by similar charge-sheets against another 29 workmen. Conciliation proceedings having failed, the dispute was referred by the Govt, for adjudication to the First Industrial Tribunal, on 13.10.58 (p. 160 of the paper-book). Of the two issues so referred, we are, in this appeal, concerned only with the first issue which, as amended by order dated 17.10.58 (p. 164 of the paper-book), was