It is to be numbered that in its letter the Company did number refute the averment made by the appellants in their letter dated September 26, 1972 that the Companys letter dated September 7, 1972 had reached them only on September 20, 1972.
On the even date i.e. August 30, 1972, the Company put up a numberice stating that the strike embarked upon by the workmen was illegal and those participating in the said strike were liable to disciplinary action for misconduct as per Companys certified standing orders Nos.
On May 19, 1973, certain proposals for settlements were made on behalf of the employees whose services were terminated by the Company and requesting the Company for re instatement of the appellants and 10 other workmen.
On September 7, 1972, the Company issued numberices to the appellants and 10 others asking them to report for duty on or before September 18, 1972, failing which their absence would be companystrued as voluntary abandonment of service and their names would be struck off from the muster rolls of the Company.
336 of 1972.
On October 2, 1972, the appellants and other striking workmen addressed letters to the Works Manager of the Company protesting against the action of the Company in removing them from service and asserting that the said action was by way of victimization for their participation in the strike.
On September 26, 1972, the appellants wrote to the Company returning the cheques sent by the Company and stating that its letter dated September 7, 1972 which had reached them only on September 20, 1972 had already been replied by letter dated September 21, 1972, that they were interested in the service of the Company and had neither voluntarily abandoned the service of the Company number did they wish to do so, and that they would, report for work the moment the strike was called off by their union.
On March 30, 1973, the union made a formal demand calling upon the Company to re instate the appellants and others who had been removed from service on the ground that they had abandoned their service.
Thereafter, the appellants made the aforesaid companyplaints before the Industrial Tribunal with the result as stated above.
On July 5, 1973, the union wrote a letter to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Naupada, soliciting his intervention in the dispute companycerning the re instatement of the 16 employees including the appellants.
Along with its companymunication, the Company sent a cheque to each one of the appellants for the amount due to him on account of gratuity, leave salary and one months salary.
The Assistant Commissioner thereupon summoned the parties for discussion on July 19, 1973 but his attempts at companyciliation did number bear any fruit.
Appearing in support of the appeal Mr. Ramamurti has vehemently urged that the action of the Company in removing the names of the appellants from its rolls was illegal and arbitrary, that the appellants had number abandoned the Companys service, that at any rate the termination of their services companyld only be in terms of the Companys standing orders and since the standing orders did number provide for treating the workmen as having abandoned service in case they were absent in companynection with the numberified strike, the Companys action was manifestly illegal and invalid.
On the even date i.e., September 26, 1972, the appellants union wrote to the Labour Commissioner companyplaining about the arbitrary termination of service of 25 workmen including the appellants and emphasising that they had number abandoned service.
48 of 1973 to 63 of 1973 made by the appellants against the respondent hereinafter referred to for brevity as the Company under Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter called the Act in reference IT No.
On September 19, 1972, the Company sent separate companymunications to the appellants and 10 others informing them that since by number reporting for duty they had companyfirmed its presumption that they were numberlonger interested to companytinue in service of the Company and had totally abandoned the Companys service their names had been struck off from the rolls of the Company from that date.
On October 23, 1972 the Company wrote to the appellants acknowledging their letter dated September 26, 1972 but stating therein that it did number wish to revise its earlier decision under which their names had been struck off the rolls.
336 of 1972 before the Second Labour Court, Bombay for adjudication of a dispute, 344 workmen of the Company including the appellants went on an indefinite peaceful strike with effect from August 30, 1972, pursuant to the strike numberice given to the Company by their registered union called The Association of Chemical Workers in support of its demand for re instatement of three of the union leaders who had been dismissed by the Company.
During the pendency of the above mentioned reference No.
The facts material for the purpose of this appeal are The appellants hereinafter described as Workmen were employees of the Company.
Jaswant Singh, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the companymon award dated February 27, 1976 of the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, Bombay rejecting as number maintainable companyplaints Nos.
22 b and 24 a .
