RANJIT SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment dated 23. 1. 1992 of the learned Single Judge vide which he dismissed C. W. P. No. 15602 of 1995 filed by the appellants against order dated 12. 12. 1989 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Punjab (for short, 'the Tribunal') on an application filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 33 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act' ).

(2.) THE facts: In the year 1975-76, the management of respondent No. 2 reduced the bonus payable to the employees. The workers union approached the management for restoration of the bonus but failed in its attempt. Consequently, all the employees up to the level of Foremen went on strike w. e. f. 11. 8. 1979. The strike was called off on 15. 7. 1979 in the wake of assurance given by the management. Thereafter, the management charge-sheeted 12 of the workers including the appellants who were office bearers of the union. The appellants and other workers controverted the charge that they had incited the workers to go on strike. The management of respondent No. 2 did not accept their reply and entrusted the enquiries to Shri S. K. Heeraji, Standing Counsel of the Company and his associate Shri B. K. Gupta, Advocate. The request made by the workmen for permission to seek assistance from the workman of another establishment was rejected by the management. Their prayer for holding a joint enquiry was also rejected. The Enquiry Officers submitted reports with the finding that the charge levelled against the workmen is proved. The management accepted the reports of enquiries and decided to dismiss the workmen. However, final order could not be passed due to pendency of industrial dispute between the workmen and the management concerning payment of bonus and statutory bar contained in Section 37 (1) of the Act. In order to get over the legal obstacle, the management filed an application under Section 33 (1) of the Act before the Tribunal for grant of permission to dismiss the appellants from service w. e. f. 17. 9. 1980. Simultaneously an order dated 17. 9. 1980 was passed placing the appellants under suspension with the rider that they will not be paid allowance for the period of suspension. The operative part of that order reads as under:

(3.) SHRI Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants assailed the order of the learned Single Judge by arguing that the view taken by him on the question of payment of subsistence allowance to the workman during the pendency of application filed under Section 33 (1) of the Act cannot be treated as correct in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki v. Presiding Officer and Anr. , A. I. R. 1986 S. C. 1168. He argued that order dated 17. 9. 1980 passed by the management to suspend the appellants did not bring an end to the master-servant relationship and, therefore, the former was bound to pay subsistence allowance in accordance with Clause 31 read with Clause 32 of the Model Standing Orders. Shri Sarjit Singh further argued that the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge erred in relying upon the decisions of Ranipur Colliery's case (supra) and Hotel Imperial's case (supra) because the question relating to the workman's entitlement to get subsistence allowance did not directly arise for consideration in those cases and in Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki's case (supra), the question was categorically answered in favour of the workmen. Still further, he argued that the learned Single Judge erred in rejecting the appellants plea on the ground of delay and their failure to specifically challenge order dated 8. 12. 1982 passed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that order dated 8. 12. 1982 will be deemed to have merged in final order dated 12. 12. 1989 passed by the Tribunal granting permission to the management of respondent No. 2 and, therefore, the appellants failure to challenge the same could not be made a ground for denying relief to them- He then argued that the action of the management of punishing the office bearers of the union only amounted to unfair labour practice and victimisation and the Tribunal committed a serious illegality by rejecting the plea of the appellants. In support of this argument, Shri Sarjit Singh relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in India General Navigation and Railway Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Their Workmen, A. I. R. 1960 S. C. 219 and Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Jai Singh and Ors. , 1961-II L. L. J. 644.