TEWARYBECHARANDCOMPANYPATNA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application is directed against the Award dated 11th January, 1984 passed in Reference case No. 6 of 1978 in favour of workmen Nanhak Mistry, Nathuni Pandit and Samdani Khan for their re-instatement as well as for payment of a sum of Rs. 7,000/- in lieu of back wages to each of them in a dispute raised on their behalf by the Union.

(2.) In short, the relevant facts of the case are that the workmen of Patna Branch of the petitioning company went on strike with effect from 9.5.1964 when three of the aforementioned workmen were on leave. It is claimed by the union that when the three workmen reported to the management to join their duties on completion of their leave period, the Branch Manager did not allow them to join on the plea that no workman would be allowed to enter the premises of the company until the strike of the workmen is over. It is also claimed that even thereafter the said three workmen approached the management for allowing them to resume their duties repeatedly but were refused to join their duties.

(3.) It appears that a Reference case for adjudication of the legality or otherwise of the aforesaid strike was taken before the Industrial Tribunal, which finally came up to this Court to C.W.J.C. No. 7530 of 1965, in which the award of re-instatement of the striking workmen was upheld by judgment and order dated 10.10.1966. The management against the said judgment of this Court went in special leave to the Supreme Court, which finally ended in a compromise by the management agreeing to re-instate the 26 workmen, who went on strike. In the meantime, it is claimed that the aforementioned three workmen again approached the management for their re-instatement pursuant to the judgment of this court, but the management did not allow them to resume their duties and when the matter was finally set at rest by the order of the Supreme Court and yet the said three workmen were not allowed to resume their duties, they approached the Labour Superintendent and thereafter a Reference was made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.