HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD Vs. CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and is a undertaking if the Government of India and carries on business of mining of copper ore and its processing far production of copper metal. It has employed a large number of labourers The Labourers have formed a union known as Rashtriya Khetri Tamba Mazdur Sangh. The respondent No 2 was working as a helper (Mechnical) in one of the establishment of the petitioner. As the respondent No. 2 absented from his duties without obtaining prior permission for leave he was warned on several occasions and entries to this effect were also entered in service roll It is further alleged in the writ petition that the respondent No. 2 not only remain -id absent from his duties without leave on various dates between 30th March, 1974, to 5th April, 1975 but on 5th April, 1975, he entered the office room of the Personnel Officer at the Central Office arid mis -behaved with him and also threatened him with dire consequences. This constituted a serious misconduct and serious dereliction of duties under the Certified Standing Orders of the petitioner company. There upon the respondent No. 2 was served with a show cause notice vide Annexure 1 dated 5 -4 -1975. The respondent No. 2 failed to submit any explanation, consequently an inquiry was initiated. The respondent No. 2 participated in the inquiry, cross -examined the witnesses produced on behalf of the petitioner but as a latter stage absented himself. The inquiry officer found the respondent No. 2 guilty of misconduct and consequently the petitioner company dismissed the respondent No. 2 by order Annexure 2 dated 5th July, 1976.

(2.) THE respondent filed a complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act 1974,(hereinafter referred to as the Act') before the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, on 14th October, 1976. The case as put forth by the respondent in his complaint was that he was a workman concerned in cast No CIT/12/75 within the meaning of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act which was pending before the Tribunal and as such he could not be dismissed unless the petitioner had obtained approval for the same from the Tribunal. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the complaint filed by the respondent and also took a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the dispute of the petitioner with the respondent was in no way connected either directly on indirectly with the dispute under case No. CIT/12/75 As the dispute in case No CIT/12/75 was in connection with four of its employees in their individual capacity, the respondent was not a workman concerted and the mere fact of his being a member of the Union which had sponsored and conducted the dispute before the Tribunal on behalf of the four member employees did not give a ay right to the respondent to file a complaint under Section 33A of the Act The learned Tribunal, respondent No. 1, rejected the Preliminary objection raised by the petitioner placing reliance on New India Motors (P) Ltd. New Delhi v. K.T. Morris : (1960)ILLJ551SC vide its order dated 15th March, 1978 Annexure 7. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the above order of the Tribunal dated 15th March, 1978.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing, on behalf of the respondent No. 2 has supported the judgment of the learned Tribunal Annexure 7 dated 15th March, 1978. He has placed strong reliance on Shalimar Paints Ltd. v. Third Industrial Tribunal 1974 Lab. IC 213, between Ehaskaran Nair v. Management, Premir Tyres Ltd. and Anr. 1976 (32) FLR 329, and New India Sugar MilLs Ltd. Darbhanga v. Krishna Ballabh. Jha and Ors. 1967 (2) LLJ 210. Learned counsel, vehemently contended that the observations of their Lordship of the Supreme Court in New India Motors (P) Ltd.'s case (supra) still applied with full force and the case of the respondent is fully covered in the dictum laid down by their Lordships in the said case. A' cording to the learned Counsel there is no subsequent decision of Hun'ble Supreme Court changing its view taken in New India Motors (P) Ltd.'s case (supra). The workman concerned has been given a wider expression and should not be limited to the workman directly and actually concerned in such dispute. The learned Tribunal has not recorded any evidence so far and has decided the preliminary objection as a mere question of law. It is only after the recording of evidence that the question about the victimisation by the opposite pat lies but of personal vindicta can be decided -The learned Counsel for the respondent, therefore, submits that there was an averment in the complaint filed by the respondent that he was interested in the out come of the result of the case No. CIT/12/75 and he would prove the sole allegation by leading evidence. The petitioner Company is not put to any loss or disadvantage even if the complaint filed by the respondent is entertained by the Tribunal, in as much as the petitioner would be entitled to satisfy the Tribunal on merits that the order of dismissal passed by it against the respondent was proper on merits.