MANAGEMENT OF TATA IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD., JAMSHEDPUR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, JAMSHEDPUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the prayer of the petitioner Management of Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd., Jamshedpur, are two. The first prayer is to quash the order, dated the 26th November, 1973 passed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur, in Reference No. 36/72, 28/73 copy of which is Annexure-6 and the second prayer is to prohibit the aforementioned Labour Court from proceeding with the hearing of the reference.

(2.) Before stating the facts of the case, it would be useful to state that respondent No. 6, Sri Arjun Uraon died during the pendency of this application and has been substituted by his heirs by an order, dated the 17th May, 1977, who are now respondents Nos. 6 (a) to 6 (f).

(3.) The relevant facts for the decision of this case are that Sri Sudarshan, Sri K. Rama Rao and Sri Arjun Uraon. respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 6, respectively, were employed in the Electrical Department, Merchant Mill Department and the Transport Department, respectively, in the factory of the petitioner at Jamshedpur and were removed from service on the basis of misconduct after issuance of charge- sheet. Respondent No. 3 was removed by an order, dated the 13th December 1968 while respondent No. 4 was discharged from service by an order, dated the 28th September, 1970. The services of respondent No. 6 were terminated by an order, dated the 3rd February, 1971. Sri Chokro, respondent No. 5, was employed in the Accounts Department of the petitioner's factory on probation and his work during the probationary period having not been found satisfactory, he was not confirmed and his services were also terminated with effect from the 3rd February, 1971. These four workmen individually complained to the Assistant Labour Commissioner cum Conciliation Officer, Jamshedpur, against their termination of services on different dates on which conciliation proceedings were started separately with regard to the individual complaints. Thereafter, it seems, the conciliation proceedings in all the four cases failed. By notification dated the 31st October, 1972, copy of which is Annexure-1, the Governor of Bihar referred the dispute of the four workmen to the Labour Court, Ranchi. In the annexure appended to that reference, the dispute with regard to the removal from services of the aforesaid four workmen was referred for adjudication and it was provided that the Labour Court would determine if the termination of their services were legal and justified and if not whether the workmen concerned were entitled to reinstatement or any other relief. While the matter was pending in the Labour Court, Ranchi, it was registered as Ref. Case No. 36 of 1972. Before the matter could be taken up before the Labour Court, Ranchi, on the basis of a Notification, dated the 28th April, 1973, bearing No. III/DI-1203/73 L & E 1539 (3), copy of which is Annexure 2, all the proceedings relating to the district of Singhbhum in Chotanagpur Divsion, which were pending before the Labour Court, Ranchi, were transferred to the Labour Court, Jamshedpur, for disposal from the stage at which they were transferred. By the Labour Court, Jamshedpur, this reference was renumbered as Ref. No. 28 of 1973, where on the 27th June, 1973, the petitioner filed an application to the effect that it was not in a position to file its written statement as the statement of demand had not been received by it. The petitionee accordingly prayed for time; copy of this application is Annexure-3. By an order of that very date the Labour Court, Jamshedpur, rejected the prayer of the petitioner and directed to file its written statement by the 30th July. 1973. The petitioner received a copy of the written statement filed by Sri Rama Rao and Sri Chokro, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 respectively, and filed a reply. Thereafter, on the 27th September, 1973, the petitioner filed an application before the Labour Court raising certain preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the reference, copy of which has been appended to the writ petition and marked as Annexure-4. In this, it was stated that the reference by the State Government was bad as it was not an industrial dispute. The reference was also attacked on the ground that it was not espoused by a registered union of the establishment of the petitioner's management or supported by a substantial number of workmen. Objection was also taken to the effect that four separate disputes, which were being conducted by four different workmen belonging to different departments having no relation with each other, could not be heard together. On the 20th November, 1973. the petitioner still filed another petition before the Labour Court, copy of which is Annexure-5, raising further objection to the maintainability of the reference. In this petition, one of the pleas raised was that the necessary "statement of demand" as required under Rr. 13 & 14 of the Industrial Disputes (Bihar) Rules 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Rules') had not been received by the petitioner either from the Labour Court or from the State Government in the absence of which the Labour Court could not proceed with adjudication of the reference. The transfer of the case from the Labour Court, Ranchi to Jamshedpur was also challenged as being not in accordance with- the provisions of S. 33B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). The Labour Court heard the parties on the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner and by the impugned order rejected them and directed the petitioner to file a written statement. With regard to the petitioner's objection that instead of making four separate references in respect of each of the workmen, the appropriate Government could not make a common reference in respect of their individual dispute it was held that there was no bar to the making of such a common reference and, hence, the reference was not invalid on that score. The second objection of the petitioner that the dispute did not constitute an industrial dispute, as it was neither espoused by any union nor had been supported by a substantial number of workmen was also negatived by the Labour Court in view of S. 2A of the Act. The Labour Court also rejected the contention of the petitioner that the transfer of the case from Ranchi to Jamshedpur was in violation of S. 33B of the Act. With regard to the objection of the petitioner that the "statement of demand" having not been sent to it as required by R. 14 of the Rules, the Court could not proceed with the reference, it was held that the non- supply of the statement of demand would not render the reference itself invalid and the statement of demand could be sent to the petitioner after the reference. It was further held by the court below that it had written to the Government for sending the statement of demand. In such circumstances, even this objection of the petitioner was rejected.