ASSOCIATED CEMENT COS Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Labour Department of the Punjab Government by its notification No. 1579c-Lab. 57/1774, dated 1st February, 1957, referred to the Industrial Tribunal, punjab, Jullundur, for adjudication an alleged dispute between Messrs Associated Cement Companies Limited, Bhupendra Cement Works, Surajpur, and its workers. The dispute referred to in the notification was as follows :--

(2.) ON 20th February, 1957 the aforesaid Company presented an application raising certain preliminary objections to the aforesaid reference. The objections mainly were : (1) that the workmen in question did not fall within the definition of the term as given in the Act and as a consequence thereof it could not be said that any industrial dispute had arisen, (2) that the dispute in question could not be termed as an "industrial dispute" as it was a dispute only between the individual workers and the Company and not between the union of workers and the company, (3) that the employees in question had been discharged after obtaining requisite permission from the Labour Appellate Tribunal and although the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court had quashed the said order of the Labour appellate Tribunal, the matter was still sub judice in the Supreme Court and the appeal of the Company on the point had been duly admitted by the Supreme court. It appears that the Industrial Tribunal did not decide the preliminary objections as it was found necessary to record evidence of the parties before deciding them. The parties put in their respective claims and statements before the Industrial Tribunal and on the 6th April, 1957 issues were framed by the Tribunal. The case was adjourned to 6th June, 1957 for recording of the evidence of the Company, but on that date the management requested for an adjournment on the ground that their attorney Shri Ranga Rao had fallen ill. The case was consequently adjourned to 17th July, 1957, but could not be taken up on that date as the Presiding Officer was on leave. It was adjourned to 17th august, 1957, but the management on that date also prayed for adjournment on the ground that their chief witness Mr. Mohan was ill. The case was adjourned to 13th September, 1957, but on that date again the attorney of the Company stated that he had not brought the evidence and submitted that the Tribunal should first decide the point of jurisdiction. The Tribunal did not agree to the adjournment and the Company produced one witness Shri A. R. Mohan and then closed their case. The case was adjourned to 30th September, 1957 for the evidence of the workmen and it appears that an application was then made by the Company that the preliminary objections should first be decided. The Tribunal passed an order on 13th September, 1957 that it was not desirable to pass piece-meal orders and he would decide the whole case by one award. The petitioners, Messrs Associated Cement Companies Limited, Bhupendra Cement works, Surajpur, filed the present petition on 24th September, 1857 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a number of directions, orders and writs detailed in paragraph No. 22 of their petition. They impleaded the industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Shri Avtar Narain Gujral, the State of Punjab, and the five employees as respondents. Detailed written statements were filed by the respondents in respect of the allegations made by the petitioners. Although in the petition, the reference by the Punjab Government had been assailed on a large number of grounds Mr. Dalip Chand Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners confined his arguments to four points only, which are as under :-1. That the dispute referred to the Tribunal was a dispute between the company on the one hand and certain individual workers on the other and for that reason it could not be termed as an industrial dispute capable of being referred to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. That the workmen had been discharged from service on 23rd April, 1955 and were no longer in the employment of the Company as on the date of reference. They did not fall within the definition of workmen as given in the Act before its amendment in the year 1956 and the dispute could not fall within the definition of "industrial dispute" as given in the original Act of 1947 before its amendment in 1956.

(3.) THAT although the Industrial Tribunal, before whom disputes were then pending, had refused permission to the Company under Section 33 of the Act to discharge the employees aforesaid, the Labour Appellate tribunal had accorded such permission and the discharge had been made under the permission of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The order of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court quashing the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal was under appeal before the Supreme court and the matter must therefore be treated as sub judice and should not be decided by the Industrial Tribunal.