L M THAPAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER No. 1 happens to be the managing director, Barakar Engineering and Foundry Works Ltd., Dhanbad. PETITIONER No. 2, C.L. Narenha, appears to be also connected with the said Foundry Works and PETITIONER No. 3, S.M. Sud, is acting works manager of Barakar Engineering and Foundry Works Ltd. Toe petitioners are being prosecuted under Section 31(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for the alleged violation of Section 31(1)(a) of the Act On the allegation that during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings before the Conciliation Officer (Labour Officer), Dhanbad, the petitioner retrenched 276 workers.

(2.) SHRI G.N. Sahay, Labour and Conciliation Officer, Dhanbad, filed a petition of complaint alleging therein that the works manager of Barakar Engineering and Foundry Works Ltd. was requested by him through his letter No. 5438 dated the 14th August, 1967 and letter No. 5492 dated the 16th August, 1967, that he would hold conciliation proceeding on the 24th of August, 1967. The Conciliation Officer, accordingly, had requested the management to maintain the status quo till the conclusion of the conciliation. It was further alleged that the management attended the conciliation proceeding fixed on the 24th August. 1967, but deliberately retrenched 276 workers during the pendency of the conciliation proceeding and a total of 238 workers were retrenched with effect from 24th August, 1967, and another 38 workers were retrenched from 6th August, 1967 and this act of retrenchment, according to the complainant, amounted to flouting of the provision of Section 33(1)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Cognizance was taken by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Dhanbad, who transferred the case to the court of SHRI A.K. Prasad, Munsif-Magistrate, Dhanbad, holding first class power for trial.

(3.) THE preliminary objection was heard by the learned Munsif-Magistrate who by his order dated 19th May, l969, while accepting the contention of the petitioners that the retrenchment did not definitely amount to dismissal of the workmen or alteration in their service condition so as to bring it under the mischief of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, took the view that the spirit of the section itself had to be looked into inasmuch as, in his opinion, the intention of the Legislature for enacting Section 33 of the Act was to safeguard the workmen from possible victimisation and the statutory provision could not be allowed to be flouted by the management by taking recourse to retrenchment pending conciliation proceeding.