GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS PRIVATE LTD Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE management of Goodlass Nerolao Paints (Private), Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the employer), has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of reference dated 3/9 August 1963, made by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi (respondent 1), under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), and to set aside by a writ in the nature of certiorari or by other appropriate direction the award of the industrial tribunal, Delhi (respondent 2), dated 30 August 1965, published in Delhi Gazette, dated 14 October 1965, directing reinstatement of Bansi Lal, respondent 3.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of the petition are these. Bansi Lal, respondent 3 (hereinafter called the contesting respondent), was employed as a salesman by the employer in April 1953. He was confirmed as such on 20 July 1953. It is claimed by the employer that in his capacity as a salesman the contesting respondent was not a workman within the meaning of that expression in the Act. According to the employer the services of the contesting respondent as a salesman were brought to an end with his consent in July 1961, and the employer decided to try him as a godown-keeper with effect from 20 July 1981. The employer has placed on record as Annexure I to the writ petition a copy of its letter of that date addressed to the contesting respondent reading as follows:

(3.) ACCORDING to the employer the arrangement was confirmed by the contesting respondent and he started working as a probationer godown-keepar on the basis of the abovesaid letter of appointment. This was followed by the employer's letter, dated 26 July 1961 (Annexure J), wherein the contesting respondent was informed that his salary bad been fixed at Rs. 155 per month and not Rs. 145 per month with effect from 20 July 1961, the other terms and conditions of service remaining unaltered. After the receipt of this communication, the contesting respondent appears to have sent some letter, dated 21 August 1961, of which no copy has been produced before me by either party. But from its reply it appears that the contesting respondent protested against his being on probation as a godown-keeper and not being appointed as a permanent godown-keeper. A copy of the reply to that letter which was sent by the employer to the contesting respondent on 23 August 1961, has been produced with the writ petition (Annexure K ). In that letter it is reiterated that the contesting respondent had not come up to the employer's requirements as a salesman and that instead of dispensing with his services altogether it was decided to consider the alternative proposition of offering him a job as the employer's Delhi godown-keeper. Then follow the following paragraphs in the employer's letter (Annexure K):