THE BRITISH INDIA CORPORATION LTD., NEW EGERTON WOOLLEN MILLS BRANCH, DHARIWAL Vs. MOHD. SADIQ AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE British India Corporation Limited, the petitioner herein, is a joint stock company registered under the Companies Act, with its registered office at Kanpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It runs a mill at Dhariwal known as New Egerton Woollen Mills which employs about 3500 workmen. Mohd. Sadiq, respondent 1, was a mistri employed in the petitioner Company in the Weaving Department. It is alleged that on September 4, 1970, at about 9 A.M., he left his appointed place of duty and attacked Shri V.N. Jajoo, the General Manager of the Mills at Dhariwal, from behind and gave him a few blows with shoes while Shri Jajoo was inspecting the motors in the Weaving Department where water had accumulated on account of heavy rains. Mohd. Sadiq was charge -sheeted for this misbehaviour and he was asked to submit his explanation to the charge -sheet and show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him as provided in clause 22(g) of the Modified Certified Standing Orders. Respondent 1 submitted his explanation in which he denied the allegations and asserted that he was beaten by Mr. Jajoo as a result of which he fainted and was carried to the Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, where he remained under medical treatment for some days and was still under treatment of E.S.I. Dispensary. Notwithstanding this explanation, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry into the charge. Respondent 1 was informed by letter dated September 16, 1970, by the petitioner -company that Shri D.R. Bhandari had been appointed as the Inquiry Officer and that he should appear before him on September 21, 1970, at 3.30 P.M. in the office of Woollen Superintendent where the enquiry proceedings would take place. The Inquiry Officer held the proceedings in the absence of respondent 1, who did not attend and submitted his report dated September 24, 1970. In this report it is mentioned that the registered letter sent to respondent 1 was received by him on September 17, 1970, and in spite of having information about the place and time of the enquiry, he did not present himself to participate in the enquiry. After waiting for half an hour the proceedings were taken ex parte. Since the General Manager himself was concerned in the incident, the report of the Inquiry Officer was sent to the Commercial Manager, Mr. Desouza, for consideration. Mr. Desouza agreed with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and decided to dismiss respondent 1. The order of dismissal dated September 29, 1970, was issued to respondent 1 which was received by him on October 1, 1970. At the time of his dismissal, proceedings were pending before the Industrial Tribunal Punjab, in which respondent 1 was a concerned workman although he was not connected with the dispute. An application under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the Act), was, therefore, made to the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, for approval of the action of the management, which was granted on March 3, 1971.

(2.) ON December 26, 1970, the Dhariwal Karkhana Workers Union Regd., Dhariwal -respondent 5, sent a demand notice requiring the petitioner -Company to reinstate respondent 1 within 15 days as his services had been illegally terminated with effect from October 1, 1970, and that his service should be treated as continuous. It was further stated that he should be paid full compensation from the date of termination of his services till the actual date of reinstatement to which he was legally entitled, failing which the Union would seek legal remedy and the entire costs would have to be borne by the management. This demand was not accepted by the management and the matter was referred to the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, who informed respondent 1 by letter dated October 14, 1971, that the case had not been considered fit to be sent to the Labour Court for adjudication because no case could be established. The record produced by respondent 2 shows that on November 17, 1971, the President, Dhariwal Karkhana Workers, Union Regd. Dhariwal, sent a letter to the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, with reference to his letter dated October 14, 1971, pointing out that the matter had not been properly considered and he was urged to reconsider the matter. It appears that no action was taken on his letter by the Labour Commissioner till Shri Raj Kumar, who was the President of the Union, was elected M.L.A. in March, 1972, and thereafter he met the Labour Commissioner and urged him to take strong action in the matter of respondent 1. This is clear from the letter dated May 9, 1972, issued by the Secretary of the Union to the Labour Commissioner. Thereafter, on June 6, 1972, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Punjab, sent a letter to the petitioner -Company informing it that it was intended to reopen the case of respondent 1 and that the representative of the management should appear before him on July 16, 1972. On receipt of this communication, the petitioner -Company wrote letter dated June 24, 1972, to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Punjab, expressing surprise at the intention of the Department to reopen the case of respondent 1 and it was stressed that in the interest of maintenance of discipline in the organization, it was essential that such cases should not be reopened under any undue pressure of any kind. It was pointed out that respondent 1 was dismissed for having assaulted the General Manager of the Company during his inspection round of the Weaving Department. A request was, however, made to intimate the circumstances under which it had been thought advisable to explore the possibilities of reopening the case. No reply was sent to this letter. On October 24, 1972, Shri Raj Kumar, M.L.A. respondent 3, addressed another letter to the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, stating that a few months back he had requested the Labour Commissioner that the reference of the case of respondent 1 had been wrongly refused and that conciliation proceedings in the matter should be again tried and case referred for adjudication if no reconciliation was possible. On receipt of this letter, the petitioner -Company was informed by telegram dated October 24, 1972, to attend conciliation meeting on November 2, 1972, at 3 P.M. at Chandigarh regarding the pending industrial dispute of respondent 1. In reply to that telegram, the petitioner sent letter dated October 27, 1972, expressing surprise at the receipt of the telegram regarding the conciliation meeting and pointing out that the request for reference of the dispute for adjudication had already been rejected after thoroughly going into the matter and that the specific reasons for reopening the case should be intimated to the Company or a copy of the application on which the case was being reopened should be supplied so that the representative of the Company could come fully prepared to discuss the case. There is no record as to what happened on November 2, 1972, but there is a letter of that date by the General Secretary of respondent 5 (Kundan Singh) to the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, wherein it is mentioned that "it is learnt that our application dated November 17, 1971, for the reconsideration of the case of Mohd. Sadiq for reference for adjudication has been rejected". It was requested that the case might be reconsidered as it was a very genuine and fit case for reference. The facts of the case were again reiterated and it was submitted that the workmen had been victimised on account of his trade union activities and he expected justice at least from the Labour Department. After the receipt of this letter, on November 17, 1972, the Secretary of the Union and the petitioner -Company were informed to meet the Deputy Labour Commissioner in the office of the Labour -cum -Conciliation Officer, Batala, at 10.30 A.M. On December 1, 1972, with all records for consideration of the case of respondent 1. It appears that the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Punjab, did not keep up the appointment on December 1, 1972, and the petitioner -Company wrote letter dated December 6, 1972, informing him that the Administrative Officer of the Company had called at the office of the Labour -cum -Conciliation Officer, Batala, on December 1, 1972, at the appointed time but had to return disappointed because he had not arrived there. It was again pointed out that the demand notice dated December 26, 1970, had been considered thread -bare before the order refusing to refer the dispute for adjudication had been passed on October 14, 1971. It was requested that that order should be maintained. On December 20, 1972, the date for conciliation was fixed as December 23, 1972, at 11 A.M. at Batala but it was changed to December 26, 1972, on which date a public holiday was declared owing to the death of Shri Rajagopalachari, the Ex -Governor General of India. The petitioner -Company sent its representative to find out as to whether any proceedings would take place on that date. He reported that neither the Deputy Labour Commissioner nor respondent 1 nor any representative of his or any officer of the respondent -Union to represent him was present at the appointed time and place. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, however, came to Dhariwal but could not contact the Administrative Officer since he was out of station. In reply to this allegation, it has been stated by the Labour Commissioner that on December 26, 1972, one Shri Kartar Singh Saggar, a clerk employed in the office of the petitioner -Company attended the office of the Labour -cum -Conciliation Officer and informed the Deputy Labour Commissioner verbally that the employers were not available at Dhariwal. Shri Kundan Singh, General Secretary of the Union, who attended the meeting on behalf of the workmen contested this point and requested the Deputy Labour Commissioner to verify personally that the Administrative Officer of the mills was available at Dhariwal. It is not stated whether the Deputy Labour Commissioner went there to verify that fact but it is admitted that no further conciliation meeting was held after December 26, 1972. The Labour Commissioner thereafter, by notification issued in the Punjab Government Gazette dated January 19, 1973, referred the following industrial dispute between the management and the workman for adjudication to the Labour Court, Jullundur : - -

(3.) THE first submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after having rejected the request of the Union for making a reference of the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court for adjudication on October 14, 1971, the Labour Commissioner had no Jurisdiction to reconsider that decision and make a reference particularly when no new facts were brought to his notice. Reliance is placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Workmen of New Snow View Transport (P) Ltd., v. The State of Punjab, (1970) 72 PLR 613. That judgment instead of supporting the petitioner goes against it. It is based on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in M/s Western India Match Co. Ltd. v. The Western India Match Co. Workers Union : AIR 1970 SC 1205. The relevant observations are contained in paras 8 and 9 of the Supreme Court judgment and are as under : - -