D N GANGULY 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 considered 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 18-2-1954, a settlement was duly reached and recorded. But on 23-2-1954, a number of workmen went on strike which was illegal as there was contravention of the provisions of Section 23 (c), 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 the work immediately. But the workmen failed to return to work in spite of warning. The Company thereafter served the workmen with charge-sheets and asked them to submit explanation. 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 re-employed 76 workmen cut of those dismissed. On 16-8-1954, 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 23-2-1954. On 2-9-1954, the dispute was settled by negotiation and the settlement was recorded in Memorandum of the same date (vide annexure 1 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. 590 of 1955) would not be given employment. But these 31 workmen did not abide by the terms of the settlement and raised a dispute regarding their employment. On 8-10-1954, the State Government acting in exercise of the power conferred by Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. The order of the State Government was to the following effect;

(3.) On 7-6-1955, Sri Fateh Narain Singh made an application for review of the order of the Tribunal. This application was rejected on the same date. On 25-6-1955, Sri Fateh Narain Singh wrote a letter to the Labour Commissioner requesting that the Union should be impleaded as a party to Ref. Nos. 10 of 1954 and 1 of 1955. Meanwhile, the Industrial Tribunal proceeded to hear both the references and between 7-6-1955 till 14-9-1955, the Tribunal held eighteen sittings and heard evidence given on behalf of the Company. On 14-7-1955, 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 17-9-1955, the State Government issued a notification purporting to act under Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act. By this notification the State Government superseded the two previous notifications dated 8-10-1954 and 15-1-1955 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: