5,000/ as back wages and other amenities.
39, of the Carding Department?
On 11th June 1956 he requested the Mill Manager for grant of leave of absence for 10 days from 12th June 1956 representing that he wanted the leave as he had to go to his native place to settle a land dispute with his brother in law.
Ramachandran proceeded on leave but he did number go to his village and remained in Bangalore itself.
An enquiry was also held on July 2, 1966 in the matter.
He was directed to return to duty at once and number later than 16th June.
Ramachandran was number even an ordinary member of that Association, but he joined three members thereof and started a hunger strike in front of the Secretariat.
It has further been pointed out that the Labour Court after having found that Ramachandran had obtained leave on a false pretext, fell into a serious error in saying that numberquestion of the Management losing companyfidence in him arose.
The management having learnt of Ramachandran having joined the hunger strike and finding that he had obtained special leave of absence under a false pretext, wrote to him on 15th June, 1956, informing him that the leave which had been granted to him was being cancelled.
Ramachandran however, companytinued his hunger strike until 20th June and did number join duty.
On 28th June, 1956 he came to the Managements Mills.
The management was justified in number accepting his explanation regarding his absence the plea of the Union that Management had acted malafide with the object of victimisation or had indulged in unfair labour practice was number established.
That letter was duly received by him on 15th June.
News of the Hunger suite appeared in a newspaper the deccan Herald in its issue dated 13th June 1956.
The appellant companypany was substituted as the appellant by an Order made by this Court on February 4, 1970 as it had taken over the business of the Bangalore woollen Cotton and Silk Mills Company Limited hereinafter referred to as the management One a Ramachandran was working in the Roving section in the Carding Department of the Managements Mills.
The decision taken by the Management was that Ramachandran had left the service, terminating his companytract under Standing Order 8 ii of the Standing Orders applicable to the establishment, by absenting himself without leave for 8 companysecutive working days.
Some members of the Bangalore Silk Mills employees Association, which was number in any way companynected with the Management or the respondent union, had decided to go on hunger strike to get certain grievances redressed, with which the management had numberconcern.
On a dispute being raised by the workmen on behalf of Ramachandran, the Government of Mysore by an Order dated 23rd July, 1964 referred the following points of dispute for adjudication to the labour Court Are the management of Bangalore Woollen Cotton Silk Mills Company Limited, Bangalore, justified in terminating the services of Shri A. Ramachandran, Roving Section Token No.
The labour Court made its Award on 26th March, 1968 in which it held inter alia i there was numbermerit in the companytention of the Union that Standing Order 8 ii was number in operation on the 2nd July, 1956, ii the management had numberright or power to revoke the leave already granted to Ramachandran iii that Ramachandran did number go to his village and had obtained leave on a false pretext.
Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from an award made by the Labour Court at Bangalore.
If number, is he entitled to reinstatement with benefits of back wages and companytinuity of service or to any other relief ?
