MANAGEMENT OF THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA Vs. THE WORKMEN OF THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Management of the Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna, has obtained a rule from this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the Workmen of the Bihar State Electricity Board, respondent No. 1, Sri Sidbeshwar Prasad Sinha, respondent No. 2 and the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, Patna, respondent No. 3, to show cause why the order of respondent No. 3, dated the 22nd Sept., 1969, a copy of which is annexure 7 to the writ application, be not called up and quashed by grant of an appropriate writ.

(2.) According to the case of the management, respondent No. 2 was a temporary workman. His services were terminated on 31-10-68 because he refused to abide by the order of transfer passed on 11-10-68. According to Cue case of the workman bis services have been illegally terminated and be is not a temporary workman. An industrial dispute was raised by respondent No. 1 and it was referred for adjudication to respondent No. 3 by the Government of Bihar on 6-6-69, a copy of the reference being annexure 5 to the writ application. The case of respondent No. 2 was referred along with the case of some other workmen, with whom we are not concerned in this writ case. The reference, so far as respondent No. 2 is concerned, was only on one point of dispute, namely, whether the termination of his service is justified and if not, what relief he is entitled to. On 12.9.69 the General Secretary of the Union of respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Industrial Tribunal stating therein that respondent No. 2 was totally unemployed and had received no wages since Aug., 1968, and that on account of his unemployment he was undergoing great hardship and living in starvation since service was the only source of his livelihood, the reference ease could not be disposed of on account of the dilatory tactics of the management and it may take some time. It was, therefore, prayed that some interim relief should be granted to the workman at the rate of normal wages till the disposal of the reference case.

(3.) The petitioner objected to the granting of any interim relief to respondent No. 2. the Tribunal heard the parties and on the same date made an order allowing interim relief of l/3rd of the pay and wages to respondent No. 2 to be paid to him till the disposal of the case. The petitioner wants this order of the Tribunal to be quashed.