KHUSHINDER SINGH Vs. GOODYEAR INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge accepting a writ petition filed by Goodyear India Limited, Ballabgar, against the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Haryana, Chandigarh, refusing to grant permission for termination of services of Khushinder Singh under the provisions of sub-section (3) of the Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) THE facts briefly stated are : On 31st of March, 1967, the Goodyear India Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) declared four per cent bonus, which is the minimum required to be declared under the Bonus Act, 1965. The appellant Khushinder Singh as the President of the Goodyear Employees' Union called a meeting on 31st of March, 1967 at 8-30 P. M. Another meeting was called for the next date, that is, Ist of April 1967, at 10 A. M. At the latter meeting, it is alleged that Khushinder Singh appellant is alleged t have exhorted the workmen to slow down their normal production. It is further alleged that with effect from April 2, 1967, that is, the day following the meeting, the production fell from 335 per shift in February, 1967, and 328. 5 per shift in March, 1967, to a bare 242. 6 per shift. According to the company, this wilful slowdown was calculated to paralyse 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. The Management issued a charge-sheet to Khushinder Singh for exhorting the workmen to slow down the production. This charge-sheet is dated 6th of April 1967. He was asked to give his explanation within 48 hours and in the mean while he was suspended from service. The reply was sent nearly 72 hours thereafter, that is, on 9th of April 1967. After taking into consideration the reply submitted, the Management decided to hold a regular enquiry and a communication in this respect was addressed to the appellant informing him that Mr. K. P. Aggarwal has been appointed as the Enquiry Officer and that the enquiry will be held on 12th of April, 1967, at 2 p. m. in the office of the Manager, Labour Department and that he would be given full opportunity to defend himself and to produce his witnesses and cross-examine the witnesses of the Company. He was further warned that if he failed to attend the proceedings, the same shall be proceeded ex parte. This communication was sent through a special messenger Mr. Kohli, a typist working in the Company, in a staff car. Mr. Kohli went to his house, but did not find him there. On getting information that Mr. Khusinder Singh was at the gate of the factory, Mr. Kohli came there and asked Subedar Ram Sarup to call Khushinder Singh inside and when he came inside the gate, Mr. Kohli offered him the letter of enquiry and also orally informed him that the enquiry has been fixed for 12th of April, 1967, at 2 P. M. He, however, refused to take the letter and walked out. A note to this effect under the signature of Mr. Kohli and attested by Subedar Ram Sarup was put on the communication. The following day, that is, 11th of April, 1967 in connect with an industrial dispute pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Labour Manager Mr. K. P. Aggarwal, Personnel Manager Mr. Hoolinger and one Mr. V. K. Narang had to go to the Canal Rest House. Khusinder Singh was present there as the President of the Union. Mr. Hollinger, Personnel Manager, personally informed him in the presence of other persons that he had refused to accept the notice for the enquiry and that the enquiry will be held on 12th of April, 1967, at 2 P. M. by Mr. K. P. Aggarwal, Labour Manager, Mr. Hollinger, Personnel Manager, addressed a letter to the Enquiry Officer the same day confirming the fact that Khushinder Singh had refused to accept service and that he was orally informed earlier on that day about the date, time and place of the enquiry and the name of the Enquiry Office. The Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry ex parte because the appellant Khushinder Singh had failed to appear.

(3.) MR. P. S. Chhabra, Foreman of the Company, appeared on behalf of the Management, and made a statement giving details of the fall in the production with effect from 2nd of April, 1967. Mr. Kohli made a statement regarding the attempted service of the summons and the refusal by Khushinder Singh. Ram Sarup was examined for the same purpose. Mr. Hollinger appeared as management witness No. 5 and inter alia stated that at 10 A. M. on 11th of April, 1967, at the Canal Rest House, he had reminded Khushinder Singh in the presence of Mr. Brijbans Kishore, Advocate, and Mr. V. K. Narang of his refusal to accept the enquiry notice and that he was verbally notified that the enquiry was scheduled to be held on 12th of April. 1967. At 2 P. M. The remaining witnesses were with regard to the exhortation that was made by Khushinder Singh at the meeting for slowing down the production. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that charges had been established and he recommended that Khushinder Singh be discharged.