KUMAR IRON AND STEEL LTD. Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Civil Rule, the legality and correctness of the award made by the Industrial Tribunal, is called into question. The facts according to the Petitioner's case are as follows:

(2.) THE workmen complained that they were ready and willing to rejoin work but the management refused to take them back. On this, an industrial dispute arose, which was made the subject of a reference by the Government under Section 10 of the industrial Disputes Act, here in after referred to as the Act, and the Industrial Tribunal enquired into the matter and held that out of the 32 workmen, the question of whose reinstatement was made the subject of the reference, 16 workers could not attend because they were arrested in connection with the criminal case and were in jail, and that as soon as they were en - larded on bail, they reported for duty to the management, about the middle of October, 1961, and although the management resumed work in the factory only by 9 -12 -61, these men were not taken back for work. As regards the other 16 workers, the Tribunal held, on the evidence adduced before it that they had reported for duty always but the management did not provide them with work, and that, therefore, the action of the management could not be said to be justified. In both the sets of cases, the Tribunal held against the management and directed that the workmen should be reinstated and it was further declared that they would be entitled to full' wages from 6.11.61 till they were absorbed in their service again. It is this decision of the Industrial Tribunal that is questioned in this Civil Rule.

(3.) AS regards the first set of 16 workers, who were under arrest and in jail and, therefore, did not report for duty, reliance is placed on the two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Burn and Co. v. their Employees, (S) : AIR 1957 SC 38, and in the case of Indian iron and Steel Co., Ltd v. Their Workmen, : AIR 1958 SC 130. In the former case a workman was arrested Under the West Bengal Security Act and detained in jail from 25 -149 to 54 -51. The company terminated his service on 22449, and the Tribunal made an order ' that he should be re -employed. The correctness of this order was considered in that case The Appellate Tribunal accepted the claim on the ground that the workman had, been discharged without the company framing a charge or holding an enquiry and that the rules of natural justice, had been violated. In that connection Venkataraman Ayyar, J. observed as follows: