BATA SHOE COMPANY LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN M. J. C. No. 590 of 1955. the petitioner is Bata Shoe Company, Ltd. , which has a factory at Digha. In M. J. C. No. 546 of 1955 the petitioners are 59 dismissed workmen who had been previously employed in the Digha factory. Both these applications are contested by the State of Bihar, who is the principal respondent. In M. J. C. No. 590 of 1955, there is another principal respondent, the Bata Mazdoor Union. The chairman of the industrial tribunal is also a respondent in both these applications.

(2.) IN February 1954, there was a dispute between Bata Shoe Company, Ltd. (which will be hereinafter referred to as the company) and its workmen. Conciliation proceedings were started, and on 18 February 1954 a settlement was duly reached and recorded. But on 23 February 1954, a number of workmen went on strike which was illegal as there was contravention of the provisions of Section 23 (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The State Government issued a press note pointing out that the strike was illegal and advised the workmen to give up strike and join work immediately. But the workmen failed to return to work in spite of warning. The company thereafter served the workmen with chargesheets and asked them to submit explanations. As the workmen failed to return to work or to give explanation, the company issued orders dismissing about 275 workmen including respondents 3 to 62. Later on, the Bata Mazdoor Union (hereinafter referred to as the union) made a representation to the company and as a result, the company reemployed 76 workmen out of those dismissed. On 16 August 1954 the union served a notice upon the company enumerating several demands. The main question raised was whether an increase in the volume of employment at the Digha factory was justified and whether the company should take back all the workers who were dismissed as a result of the strike of 23 February 1954. On 2 September 1954, the dispute was settled by negotiation and the settlement was recorded in a memorandum of the same date (vide annexure I to the company's application ). One of the terms of the settlement was that 31 workmen, namely, respondents 3 to 33 of M. J. C. No. 690 of 1955) would not be given employment. But these workmen did not abide by the terms of the settlement and raised a dispute regarding their employment. On 8 October 1954, the State Government, acting in exercise of the power conferred by Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, referred the dispute to the industrial tribunal. The order of the State Government was to the following effect:-

(3.) ON 7 June 1955, Sri Fateh Narain Singh made an application for review of the order of the tribunal. This application was rejected on the same date. On 25 June 1955, Sri Fateh Narain Singh wrote a letter to the Labour Commissioner requesting that the union should be impleaded as a party to references Nos. 10 of 1954 and 1 of 1955. Meanwhile the industrial tribunal proceeded to hear both the references and between 7 June 1955 and 14 September 1955 the tribunal held eighteen sittings and heard evidence given on behalf of the company. On 14 July 1955, Sri Fateh Narain Singh sent a telegram to the State Government repeating the request that the union should be made a party to the two references pending before the industrial tribunal. On 17 September 1955, the State Government issued a notification purporting to act under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, By this notification the State Government superseded the two previous notifications dated 8 October 1954 and 15 January 1955, and made a fresh reference of the dispute between the company and the workmen to the industrial tribunal. The notification is to the following effect:-