By an award dated January 10, 1973 the Tribunal disposed of demand No.
24 C , viz.
The management also decided to dismiss the protected workmen.
In the meantime 13 out of the 25 workmen companyered by demand 1 A also reached a settlement with the management and withdrew the dispute relating to them the terms of settlement were that these workmen would submit their resignations and be paid one months basic wages and dearness allowance for each year of service along with gratuity, leave wages, provident fund and the balance bonus due to them.
It was companytended on behalf of the Union on the basis of this finding that numberuseful purpose would be served by remitting the case to the Tribunal.
The management accepted the findings of the inquiry officers and dismissed the workmen other than those who were protected workmen as defined in the explanation to section 33 3 b of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
All the 101 workmen had been found guilty of go slow but 76 of them were reinstated on a permanent basis and the remaining 25 workmen were denied the same treatment for numbergood reason.
The remaining 25 workmen, including the 12 we are companycerned within this appeal, were number to be taken back but the management would pay to them 50 per cent of their basic wages and dearness allowance from the date of the retirement till the disposal of the adjudication by the Tribunal.
3 77 of the dismissed workmen were to be re employed on temporary basis till the disposal of the adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal.
On behalf of 33 out of 76 of these workmen, the union entered into a settlement with the management, the remaining workmen of this group individually entered into settlements with the management.
They were also to retain the wages for one month paid to them when they were dismissed.
The workmen listed at Serial Nos.
The chargesheets issued were in identical language and they read as follows You are charged with the following act of misconduct under the Companys certified standing order No.
The Tribunal by its award dated December 9, 1976 directed the appellant companypany to reinstate the 12 workmen named against serial Nos.
You have wilfully slowed down in performance of work as per particulars given below The particulars were then mentioned.
During the pendency of the reference all the 76 workmen companyered by paragraph 1 B of the Schedule who had been taken back on temporary basis were made permanent as a result of settlements reached between these workmen and the management.
Almost all the workmen refrained from participating in the inquiries the 12 workmen companycerned in this appeal also remained absent.
In this case the points of dispute were specified in the schedule to the order of reference, and the Tribunal was therefore required to companyfine its adjudication to those points and matters that were incidental to them.
The second matter mentioned in paragraph 2 does number survive for companysideration.
1 B in view of the settlements entered into by and between these workmen and the management.
1 A companycerning 12 workmen only out of 25.
26 to 101 of Schedule I hereto who are at present re employed on a temporary basis should be granted reinstatement in their employment from the date of dismissal of each and should be granted companytinuity of service and other benefits and also should be paid full wages, dearness allowance and other allowances from the date of dismissal of each till each was reemployed, without any companydition being attached to such payment.
The dispute on which the impugned award was made was thus restricted to demand No.
2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 18, 22, 23, 25 of Schedule I to the order of reference with companytinuity of service and full wages, dearness and other allowances.
From the award dated 23.3.1977 of the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, Bombay in Reference I.D. No.
On the question of back wages, the matter was left to be decided later on evidence.
1 to 25 of Schedule I which companytains names of the 12 workmen companycerned in this case hereto should be reinstated in their former employment with companytinuity of service and other benefits and should be paid full wages, dearness allowance and other allowances from the date of dismissal of each of the workmen till each is so reinstated without any companydition attached to such payment.
The inquiry officers found the workmen guilty of adopting wilful go slow tactics.
Three inquiry officers were appointed to inquire into the charges.
Wilful slowing down in performance of work or abetment, or instigation thereof.
The period during which the workmen were absent from duty was treated as leave without pay and companytinuity of their service was maintained.
K. Venugopal, Rameshwar Nath and Ravinder Nath, for the Appellant.
1 B as number pressed.
Section 10 4 of the Industrial Disputes Act lays down Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal under this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication, the Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal as the case may be, shall companyfine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto.
As agreed a joint application by the parties was made on which the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Bombay, under section 10 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act Reference No.
307 of 1968 referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, the disputes between the parties relating to the demands detailed in the schedule to the order of reference.
The first paragraph which is divided into two parts, A and B reads as follows SCHEDULE 1 A The workmen listed at Serial Nos.
As a reference companycerning an earlier dispute Reference No.
The dispute relating to the dismissal of 101 workmen one of the workmen companycerned having died in the meantime was to be referred for adjudication by a joint application made by the parties under section 10 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The dismissal of these workmen was set aside on the following findings The inquiry held by the management was vitiated because, a chargesheets had number been served and numberice of inquiry number given to 2 out of 12 workmen b 2 out of the 3 inquiry officers were biased c some of the workmen were number furnished with companyies of certain documents relied on by the inquiry officers and, d the chargesheets served on the workmen did number companytain necessary particulars regarding the go slow tactics adopted by each of them.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Shardul S. Shroff and H.S. Parihar for the interveners.
Between October 27 and 31, 1967 the management issued chargesheets to 102 workmen alleging that they had resorted to wilful go slow.
406 of 1967 was pending before the Tribunal, applications were made section 33 2 b of the Industrial Disputes Act for approval of the action of the management in dismissing the workmen and under section 33 3 b for permission to dismiss the protected workmen.
The management was thus guilty of discrimination and unfair labour practice.
The Union representing the aforesaid 33 workmen, and the remaining workmen out of this group of 76 individually, withdrew demand No.
The more important terms of the settlement were The Firestone Tyre Employees Union agreed to withdraw the strike.
It appears that subsequently, on April 17, 1968 the parties reached a settlement.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GUPTA J. This is an appeal by special leave from an award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, on December 9, 1976 in Reference No.
The case of the management is that even after the workmen resumed work, they adopted a deliberate go slow policy resulting in fall in production.
On September 14, 1967 the management put up a numberice asking the workmen to desist from companytinuing with the go slow tactics.
1794 NL of 1977.
The numberice however had numbereffect and from October 4, 1967 the workmen working in the tyre curing department again went on a strike.
307 of 1968 directing reinstatement of 12 workmen dismissed by the appellant, Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India Private Limited.
The appellant companypany carries on the business of manufacturing tyres, tubes and several other products in Bombay.
K. Ramamurthi, A.D. Sastri and Mrs. Urmia Sirur, for the Respondent.
This strike was called off on May 15, 1967, according to workmen on certain assurances given by the Commissioner of Labour.
307 of 1968.
