BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT Vs. JADUNANDAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this writ application against the order of the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna (Respondent No. 2), dated the 10th June, 1975, a copy of which has been attached as Annexure-4 to the application. By the aforesaid order, respondent No. 2 has rejected a preliminary objection of the petitioners challenging the maintainability of the petition filed by respondent No. 1 before him under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The preliminary objection of the petitioners was respondent No. 1 was not a "workman." Within the meaning of Section 33(3) of the Act; and, therefore, he had no right to make a complaint before the Tribunal against the order of his discharge dated the 15th March, 1969, passed by petitioner No. 1.

(2.) The relevant facts briefly stated are these. Petitioner No. 1 is a Road Transport Corporation established by the State Government under the provision of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Conductor in the year 1965. On 3rd November 1968, when he was serving as a conductor of Bus No. B.R.A. 5194 running on Deoghar-Dumka route, on checking, it was detected that tickets were not issued to 18 passengers and 23 passengers were unhooked. He was accordingly discharged by order dated 15th March, 1969 after holding a domestic enquiry. Respondent No. I filed an appeal to the General Manager of the Corporation, but the same was dismissed on 15th June, 1970. He then filed a mercy appeal to the Chairman of the Corporation. This appeal was initially admitted but later on in May, 1972 was dismissed on the ground that "the system of hearing of mercy appeals in case of discharge... has been discontinued by the Chairman with effect from 13th March, 1972". Respondent No. 1 then filed a complaint under Section 33A of the Act before the Industrial Tribunal, Patna with the allegations that petitioner No. 1 had passed the order of his discharge in violation of the inhibition contained in Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act inasmuch as, he was discharged from his services during the tendency of an industrial dispute pending in Reference No. 17 of 1968 between the petitioner No. 1 and its workmen before the Tribunal. The above proceeding arose on a reference made by the State Government on account of an industrial dispute raised by the union of the workmen of petitioner No. 1 on account of the dismissal of a number of conductors and drivers on charges in the nature of misappropriation of the money realized as bus fares from the passengers without issuing proper tickets. Respondent No. 1 was not a party to that proceeding. The Industrial Tribunal upheld the order of dismissal passed by petitioner No. 1 by its award dated the 3lst May, 1969 (Annexure-1).

(3.) The grievance of respondent No. 1 in his complaint, which was registered as Case No. 30 of 1972, was that the order of discharge was an act of victimization on account of his trade union activities in the absence of the application of petitioner No. 1 for permission of the Tribunal a breach of the said provisions was committed. Petitioner No. 1 in his show-cause took a plea that respondent No. 1 could not be said to be a concerned workman in Reference No. 17 of 1968 as that related to specific cases of discharge and dismissal of individual workmen and therefore, there had been no breach of Section 33 of the Act. When the case, was, taken up for hearing, the petitioners raised the above preliminary objection, Respondent No. 2 overruling the objection has held that the application was maintainable. The learned Presiding Officer has held that respondent No. 1 was an active member of the union and, therefore, "there appears to be some link between the dismissal which gave rise to Reference No. 17 of 1968 and the dismissal of the complaint of which he has made complaint under Section 33-A. He has, however, not indicated as to what was that common link between the earlier order of dismissal and the dismissal order against respondent No. 1.