JOHN LEE Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Judgment will dispose of Civil Writs Nos. 244d or 1966 and 369d to 372d of 1965. There is no difference In the facts involved except that in Civil Writ No. 244d of 1966 the claim of the petitioner la that the agreement dated 27 July 1965, on which a considerable part of the judgment of the industrial tribunal has been based cannot, In any event, bind the petitioner as his shop came into existence long after the said agreement. An Industrial dispute between the various petitioners and their workmen as represented by the Leather and Shoe Workers' Union was referred on 15 October 1962, to the industrial tribunal, Delhi. The terms of reference were as follows;

(2.) THE industrial tribunal by Its award dated 27 February 1965, held that the persons paid on piece-rated basis were workmen within the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the said workers were entitled to be paid weekly-offs from 1 February 1965, as also the issue of service cards. All other points were decided In favour of the petitioners. The award in so far as it goes against the petitioners has been challenged principally on the ground that it is based on no evidence and has, in any case, been arrived at without affording proper opportunity to the petitioners of baling heard. It IB necessary to refer for a moment to the order sheet showing the various orders passed by the Industrial tribunal on different dates. On 6 January 1964, the matter was "adjourned to 10 March 1964 for 'evidence and hearing,' at the request of parties. " The case was again sojourned from 10 March 1964 to 18 May 1964, for "evidence and hearing. " The following order was passed by the Industrial tribunal on 18 May 1964: Presence as before. The case was fixed for evidence. But it was considered necessary to hear the parties before proceeding with the evidence. It transpires that the statement of claim Itself Is not clear on certain points nor Is the written statement. The original agreement dated 26 February 1931, has been filed today and It purports to be signed by M. M. Aggarwal who is alleged to be Secretary of the New Delhi Traders' Association. This agreement contains an agreed term of reference as the last Hem which is embodied In terms of reference No. 4, Para. 13, of the statement of claim does not refer to this agreement nor does It make clear In what circumstances the strike took place. The corresponding paragraph of written statement is also evasive. The settlement Itself has not been admitted although It Is allegedly signed by the Secretary of the New Delhi Traders' Association. Let Sri Aggarwal be produced for examination. The union should file better particulars regarding this matter on the next date with copy to the management at least ten days In advance. The latter also to file Its reply-rejoinder on the same date. Regarding the first term of reference the union undertakes to file affidavits of the workmen regarding the conditions under which they were employed and supply advance copy to the management at least fifteen days ahead. The management to file counter-affidavit on the next date. In regard to term (2) the workmen should file agreements or awards If any In regard to the alleged practice of Holt and Diwali bonus In other establishments In Delhi and also Include this la their affidavits which should Include affidavits of the establishments concerned. For further bearing and cross-examination of deponents, 10, 11 and 12 August 1964.

(3.) AGAIN on 10 August 1964, the following order was passed by the tribunal :