ROHTAS INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. DHROVA NARAYAN PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) How malicious a management can be and how it can victimise its workman, can, perhaps, be illustrated by this application which has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash Annexure 1, an award dated 28.2.1975 by which the Industrial Tribunal, respondent No. 2, set aside the order dismissing respondent no. 1 and directed him to be reinstated forthwith full wages and other benefits for the idle period.

(2.) Admittedly Reference nos. 60 of 1969, 50 of 1969, of 29 1972, 40 of 1972 and several other reference between the management of M/s. Rohtas Industries Ltd. and their workmen were pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Patna, and also admittedly respondent no. 1, who was a clerk in the Rohtas Industries Ltd., was a concerned workman within the meaning of section 35 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). While the aforesaid references were pending, the management dismissed respondent no.1 from service. Respondent no. 1 filed a complaint under section 33-A of the Act making a grievance that the order terminating his services as made in violation of the mandatory provisions as contained in section 33 (2) (b) of the Act. It was, inter alia, stated in the complaint under section 33-A of the Act that he was a graduate at the time of his appointment and that after his appointment he started taking part in trade union activities which was not liked by the management and for that he was made to suffer and was threatened of dire consequences. It has been further stated that the management (the petitioner) did not tolerate his trade union activities and dismissed him from service falsely stating that he had not passed his B. A. Examination. Respondent no. 1 in these circumstances asserted that the termination of services was in fact an order of dismissal and amounted to unfair labour practice. The order (terminating the services of respondent no. 1) was also challenged on the ground that it was without affording any opportunity to him to clarify and explain the allegations.

(3.) The management in response to the notice issued by respondent no. 2 appeared and showed cause. According to it, at the time of interview the complainant had submitted his marks-sheet of 8. A. Part I and B. A, Part II examinations according to which he had obtained second division. The Deputy Chief Accountant of the Company grew suspicion and he, therefore, wrote a letter to the Registrar, Gorakhpur University requesting him to inform if respondent no. 1 had passed B. A. Examination in the year 1967 and also if he had passed then what was the division in which he was placed. A request was also made to send the mark-sheet of respondent no. 1. It was further stated in the show cause that the Joint Secretary of the University replied that the complainant had appeared in B. A. Part II Examination in 1967 but for certain reasons his result had been withheld. With regard to the request for mark-sheet, the reply was that since the result has been withheld no mark-sheet could be issued. On these facts, the management's stand was that respondent no. 1 had fraudulently obtained employment on the basis of false and fabricated document which amounted to violation of rule 65 of the standing order of the company. It was also said that this rule empowered the management to terminate the services of respondent no. 1.