OM PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed by the workmen under Article 226/227 of the Constitution has arisen out of a dispute between the petitioner-workmen Union and the Management of Modella Woollens Ltd., Chandigarh.

(2.) Petitioner 1, O.P. Sharma, was appointed by the Management of Modella Woollens Ltd. (respondent-2) on 6th Aug. 1954, as a Senior Accounts Assistant. He was duly confirmed and he was also given several letters in appreciation of his efficient, honest and diligent work. Since the service conditions in the factory of respondent 2 were very much unsatisfactory, petitioner 1 organised the workmen into a Union under the name and style of "Modella Textile Workers' Union" in the year 1967 and he was elected as its founder president on 26th Jan, 1968. On 21st Mar., 1968, the Management placed before the Union a proposal for introduction of relay shift system and it also announced additional increments to certain categories of workmen with effect from 1st Feb. 1968. This proposal of the Management was considered by the Working Committee of the Union on 25th Mar., 1968 and in the General Body meeting on 26th Mar., 1968 it was decided that the proposal of the Management could be accepted provided the workmen were compensated adequately for the additional workload and also for the inconvenience that would be caused as a result of introduction of relay-shift system. It is averred in the petition that as the proposal of the Management of respondent 2 was not accepted by the Union unconditionally, the management got annoyed and as a first reaction withdrew the additional increments which had been announced. The Union addressed a letter on 2nd April. 1968, to the Management protesting against the withdrawal of increments. Copy of that letter is attached with the petition as Annexure 'A' and Ex. A- 16 on the record of the Industrial Tribunal. Vide their letter dated 3rd April, 1968, the Union also requested the Management to declare 6th April, 1968 as holiday against the demand of 11 days holidays and vide letter dated 5th April, 1968 again requested the Management to declare 6th April, 1968, as holiday. On 9th April, 1968, petitioner No. 1 Om Parkash Sharma personally delivered two letters both dated 9th April, 1968 one protesting against the action of the Management in getting thumb impression of bardara Singh on a resignation letter and the other against the violation of the agreement dated 22nd Sept., 1967. These letters are annexed with the petition as Annexure 'B' and 'C' and on the file of the Industrial Tribunal as Exhibits A-4 and A-5. respectively. Soon after the aforesaid two letters were delivered by petitioner 1 to Shri O. P. Bansal, the Labour Officer of respondent 2 on 9th April, 1968, petitioner 1 was called by Shri H. N. Motwani, the Labour Officer of respondent 2 at Thana, and asked him not to aggravate the situation by giving such letters and also threatened him that in case he did not withdraw the letters regarding Sardara Singh. he would issue charge-sheet to him and Mr. R. C. Bhaskar, the General Secretary of the Union. Since petitioner 1 refused to do so, he was again called in and was issued the charge-sheet. Shri R. C. Bhaskar was also charge-sheeted next morning when he came for duty. Copy of the charge-sheet dated 9th April, 1968, is annexed with the petition as Annexure "D" and Ex. R-1 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal. Petitioner 1 filed reply to the charge-sheet on 11th April, 1968, copy of which is attached with the petition as Annexure 'E'. In his explanation, petitioner 1 denied the charges and stated that he had been victimised for his trade union activities. Petitioner 1 appeared before the Enquiry Officer, Shri R. L. Gupta, on 17th April, 1968, on which date the Enquiry Officer recorded the Examination-in-Chief of the witnesses of the Management in the absence of the documents and adjourned the enquiry to 19th April, 1968, for cross-examination of those witnesses. On 19th April, 1968, the evidence of the Management was closed and the enquiry was adjourned to 24th April, 1968. for evidence in defence. The enquiry proceedings were again adjourned from time to time and finally was adjourned to 25th May, 1968, for defence evidence, on which date the Enquiry Officer closed the defence evidence and decided to submit his findings on the basis of evidence on record in spite of telegraphic request by petitioner- 1 and by Shri R. C. Bhaskar for adjournment on account of sickness. The Enquiry Officer did not adjourn the case and submitted his findings, on the basis of which the termination orders were passed by the Management behind the back of the petitioner on 3rd June, 1968. Copy of the letter of dismissal received by petitioner-1 is annexed as annexure "G" with the writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, canvassed that petitioner 1 was victimised because of his trade union activities and thus it amounts to unfair labour practices and that the enquiry conducted by Shri R.L. Gupta, Enquiry Officer, is vitiated as no opportunity to adduce defence evidence was given to petitioner 1 and that the finding of the Enquiry Officer are perverse as the evidence adduced by petitioner 1 was not considered by the Tribunal.