INDIAN TUBE COMPANYLTD Vs. PRATAP MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as also the writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are directed from the same order dated 3 -5 -1967 of Shri T.P. Choudhury, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in B.S. Case No. 32 of 1965. As sometimes a doubt is entertained as to whether the Labour Court acting as an Authority under Section 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 -Bihar Act 8 of 1954 (hereinafter called the Act), is a court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a matter of abundant precaution the writ application has also been filed. A similar doubt arose in the case of the Calcutta Chemical Company Limited v. D. K. Barman C.R. No. 371 of 1965 heard with C.R. No. 320 of 1967 and C. W. J. C. No. 509 of 1967 disposed of on 29 -10 -1968. In that case we said that we were inclined to take the view that the Labour Court is a court subordinate to the High Court and, even assuming it to be not so, since all the cases were placed before and heard by a Division Bench, it made no difference whether the applications were treated under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Article 227 of the Constitution. The same view was expressed in another Bench decision of this Court in Imperial Tobacco Company of India Ltd. v. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Patna.

(2.) In support of the rule, Mr. K.D. Chatterji has pressed two points for our consideration, (1) that the order of the employer dispensing with the services of the employee concerned in this case was justified and legal, the Labour Court has committed an error of jurisdiction in holding it otherwise and (2) that in any view of the matter, the Labour Court was wrong in law in thinking that merely because the order dispensing with the services of the opposite party was bad, he was entitled to the relief of the reinstatement; the court below under that wrong impression of law has exercised jurisdiction with material illegality in ordering reinstatement in this case.

(3.) The facts of the case may be stated in a short compass. The employee was employed as a driver under the Indian Tube Company Ltd., the petitioner in this case, sometime in the year 1957. On account of illness he was absent from duty for a few days in the last week of April and in the first week of May, 1964. Leave had been granted up to the 4th of May, 1964. From 5th of May, however, the employee remained absent without any leave application or justifiable cause. The employer thereafter proceeded to frame a charge -sheet against the employee on the 20th of May, 1964, and terminated his services without holding an enquiry and without giving one month's notice or one month's wages in lieu of notice. The services were terminated with effect from 3 -6 -1964.