VEENA CHANDRA Vs. MANAGEMENT OF VISWAMITRA PRESS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order dated the 9th August, 1973, as contained in Annexure 'II' to the writ application passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna, Respondent No. 2 in the case.

(2.) The petitioners along with three other persons were workmen employed in the Vishamitra Press, Respondent No. 1, an industrial establishment within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in 1957, they were dismissed by the management and in 1958 a reference was made by Respondent No. 3 State under Section 10 of the Act to the Labour Court, Patna, Shri Ali Hassan was its Presiding Officer. In November, 1959, Shri Ali Hassan submitted his Award in favour of the management and the workmen challenged the same under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court in M.J.C. 306 of 1960. The writ application was allowed on 9.11.1962 and the High Court passed an order remanding the case to the Labour Court. In the meantime, Shri Ali Hassan retired and, according to the case of the petitioners, Shri Kedarnath Singh, who was the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court at Muzaffarpur was appointed as the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court at Patna in addition to his duties at Muzaffarpur. The management, Respondent No. 1, challenges the appointment of Shri Kedarnath Singh. However, the case was taken up by Shri Singh in pursuance of the High Court's order and by his Award dated the 2nd May, 1964, he held that the dismissal order was illegal. Some of the workmen were held entitled to re-instatement as well as wages for the entire period, some other were entitled to reinstatement, but only portion of the back wages and the remaining workmen were held to be entitled to compensation only. The management, this time, came to the High Court in writ jurisdiction and the case was registered as M.J.C. 994 of 1964. The writ application was dismissed in limine on 3.8.1964. On the management making an application, a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court was granted, but as no appeal was actually lodged, leave was later on, cancelled. In the meantime, the management directed the workmen to join by certain orders passed in Nevember and December, 1965, but none of them actually joined their posts. On the 2nd of August, 1966, the petitioners filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Act before the Labour Court for appropriate reliefs in terms of the Award. They, of course, could not and did not make any claim in regard to the period after they failed to join their posts. The application was registered as Misc. Case No. 3 1966. In the meantime, Shri Haribanshi Sahay was appointed Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna and had taken over charge from Shri Kedarnath Singh. Shri Sahay was succeeded by Shri S.S. Dayal. who by his order dated 17.7.1968 dismissed Misc. Case No. 3 of 1966 on the ground that the award of Shri Kedarnath Singh was without jurisdiction and inoperative. The petitioners challenged the judgment in C.W.J.C. 1044 of 1968. This application was allowed by the High Court on 13.1.1971 and the matter was remanded with a direction that the Labour Court would determine all the contentions raised by the parties including any objection. The management, thereafter, filed a fresh application raising several objections. By the order impugned in the present case, Shri G.S. Verma, the next Presiding Offlcer of the Labour Court, again rejected the petitioners application.

(3.) In view of the points raised on behalf of both the parties, only three of the objections raised in the court below are required to be stated. They are: