SADOU ASOM RAJYIK PARIBAHAN NIGAM CHALAK RESENTED BY SHRI NIBARAN BORA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - This Civil Rule petition is filed by a Union of vehicle drivers in titled Sadou Asom Rajyik Paribahan Nigam Chalak Santha. The members of this Union ply vehicles of a Corporation called the Assam Transport Corporation incorporated on March 1, 1970 under the Central Act 64 of 1950. The State of Assam on Dec. 5, 1987 declared Assam Transport Corporation is a public utility service and further proclaimed for six months from the date of declaration the workers of the Corporation not to go on strike. Notwithstanding the declaration between Feb. 2 to 10 of 1987 the workers of the Corporation were on strike. The drivers also of the Corporation took part in the strike and against them during the strike it is alleged that they wantenly immobilished the vehicles of the Corporation, damaged night super service vehicles 3506, 3508, 3226 and 3228, gheraoed non participant workers and against some drivers it is alleged they had abandoned the vehicles while the passengers were sitting in the vehicles.

(2.) The Corporation authorities after the strike was over in exercise of their powers against the guilty drivers terminated four drivers transferred six drivers from one place to another suspended fifty one drivers of the Corporation. Ali such affected drivers thereupon in a common petition approached the Industrial Tribunal at Gauhati in Reference Case 4 of 1988 for their reinstatement and for cancellation of transfer orders. The Tribunal it appears passed two orders one on March 21 and the second on May 1,1988. The particulars of the order are not relevant in this case therefore are not set out in this order. On the second day of the order after passing the order the Presiding Officer, Shri C. C. Phukan retired from service. It is in such on interregum the drivers have filed the instant petition on June 1,1988 with the prayer to reinstate them by order of this Court. Naturally such a petition will be resisted by their employer and indeed it is opposed vehemently by the Corporation in their affidavit-in-opposition and during the debate that followed in this Court. The drivers in this case alleged after retirement of the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal no other officer is appointed to preside over the Tribunal. It is also alleged in the entire State of Assam no officer is there to preside over the Tribunals. All Tribunals in Assam are not functioning for no officer is appointed, to preside over them. Curiously the averment made by the drivers is found true. To say the least such a circumstance leave us much to be desired.

(3.) In this petition rule issued on June 1,1988. Affidavits-in-opposition are filed. Rejoinders are lodged. We have heard the Advisor of the drivers Union for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the Corporation. The first issue raised on behalf of the Corporation in opposition is should this Court exercise its powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution on the above facts or whether the drivers be directed to seek relief before the Tribunal where their petition is already pending inquiry in Reference Case 4 of 1988.