(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari and mandamus calling for records of the industrial tribunal, Haryana (respondent 1), and quashing its order, dated 30 September 1967 (annexure Q ). Petitioner 1 is Goodyear (India), Ltd. , Ballabgarh, and petitioner 2 is Harry Dale Hollinger, personnel manager, Goodyear (India), Ltd, The respondents are the industrial tribunal, Haryana, Khushinder Singh and Goodyear Employees' Union, Ballabgarh.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are that respondent 2, Khushinder Singh, is the president of the Goodyear Employees' Union, respondent 3, and as such he is a " protected " workman under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He is also a workman with the designation of cureman in department 51-2. On 31 March 1967, the management of the company declared a 4 per cent bonus for the year 1966 under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. Respondent 2 called a meeting of the workers of the company on 31 March 1987, at 8-35 a. m. and another on 1 April 1967, at 10 a m. It is said that he instigated the workmen to slow down their normal production as a protest against the declaration of 4 per cent bonus for the year 1986 which under the Act was the minimum. In consequence of exhortations of respondent 2, the average production of tyres at the plant fell instantaneously from 335 per shift in February 1967 and from 328. 5 per shift in March 1967 to 242. 6 per shift from 2 April 1937. This was done deliberately to pressurize and intimidate the petitioners as also to create conditions of labour unrest and dissatisfaction against the management. This wilful slow-down was calculated to paralyze the normal efficiency and smooth functioning of the plant and as such constituted the offence of wilful misconduct within Clause XVI (3) of the certified standing orders. It was also alleged that the previous disciplinary record of this respondent was unsatisfactory. The petitioners consequently issued a letter of charge dated 16 April 1967, to respondent 2 calling upon him to furnish an adequate explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him. It was stated that if no explanation was received within 48 hours, the management would assume that the charge was admitted and would be at liberty to dispose of the matter ex parte in accordance with Clause XVII (c) of the certified standing orders without further reference to respondent 2. It was also mentioned in the letter of the charge that since the charge was grave and serious, he was put under suspension with immediate effect pending disposal of the matter-vide annexure B. Respondent 2 sent his reply on 9 April 1967, 72 hours after receipt of the letter of charge pleading not guilty and requesting that the order of suspension be withdrawn. He said that the letter of charge was " with an. ill-motive to harass and victimize me as per my trade union activity "-vide annexure C.
(3.) PETITIONER 2, the personnel manager, by means of intimation dated 10 April 1967, informed respondent 2 that his explanation had been found unsatisfactory and that it was considered expedient to hold an enquiry into the charges levelled against him. The enquiry would be held on 12 April 1967, at 2 p. m. in the office of the manager, labour department. Sri K. P. Aggarwal will be the inquiry officer. It was also stated that he would be given full opportunity for defence in the enquiry. He could produce his witnesses and he could also cross-examine the company's witnesses. His attendance was essential and if he failed to do so, it would be deemed that he admitted the charges and was avoiding the enquiry. If he did not attend the enquiry proceedings, the enquiry would be held ex parte-vide aunexure D. Attempt was made to deliver the notice of enquiry dated 10 April 1967, through Sri K. Kohli, clerk, labour department, at the residence of respondent 2, He went with the enquiry intimation letter (annexure D) to the residence of respondent 2 in a car driven by company's driver Sri Chaman Lal at about 3 p. m. Respondent 2 was not at his house. The management then learnt that he had come to the factory main gate. Sri K. Kohli then went to the gate-house with the enquiry intimation letter and asked subedar Ram Sarup, security guard, at the gate-house to call Khushinder Singh inside. When he came inside the gate, Sri K. Kohli presented the letter of enquiry which it is said Khushinder Singh read and refused to accept. Sri K. Kohli wrote on it " refused to accept " and underneath signed his name. Subedar Ram Sarup also put his signature. It was stated that the procedure adopted was in accordance with the standing orders, Clause XVII (c)-vide annexure P.