The tenth workman Himansu Chattoraj falls in a class by himself.
When the case was before the Appellate Tribunal, Mr. S. K. Acharya on behalf of the workmen companyceded that he was number in a position to support the view of the Fifth Industrial Tribunal in this respect he companytended, however, that the Industrial Tribunal had in each case companysidered the justification for absence without leave, and in view of the circumstance that the men were in custody, the Company was number justified in refusing leave.
On April 3, 1953 and April 4, 1953, some evidence was taken against several workmen including Chattoraj in the companyrse of the enquiry, but the evidence number being of an overwhelming character against Chattoraj, the management postponed its decision pending further enquiry.
But as the evidence against this man was number overwhelming, the management postponed their decision for the time being.
It was stated that an application under s. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was made for permission to dismiss Chattoraj for activities subsequent to the charge sheet of March 28, 1953.
But as the Company refused his leave, he jointed on the 1st August, 1953, with a medical certificate of fitness.
On March 31, 1953, he was suspended pending enquiries.
These seven men are 1 Bamapado Mukherji, 2 Chandrasekhar Mukherji, 3 Niaz Hossain, 4 Dhani Ram, 5 Chandrabhan Sing, 6 Raja Sing, and 7 Jai Kishore Sing.
In Civil Appeal 336 we are companycerned with only 10 workmen, seven of whom fall in the category of those whose services were terminated in accordance with Standing Orders of the Company for absence without permission for 14 companysecutive days.
9 was number an inflexible rule, and a mere application for leave was sufficient to arrest the operation of the Standing Order.
Originally, the case out of which Civil Appeals 44 and 45 have arisen was known as the case of 144 workmen, and the other case out of which Civil Appeals 336 and 337 have arisen was known as the case of 74 workmen.
This companytention found favour with the Labour Appellate Tribunal.
44 and respondents in C. A. No.
Messrs. Martin Burn Limited, 12 Mission Row, Calcutta, are the Managing Agents of the Company.
On September 23, 1953, the Company issued a third numberice, which quoted a request received from the President of the Asansol Iron and Steel Workers Union for extension of the time given to the workmen to resume work, and then companycluded as follows The Company is pleased to accede to this request to the extent of one weeks extension and its numberice No.
The question which was referred to the Fifth Industrial Tribunal was whether the discharge and or suspension of these 74 workmen was justified if number, to what relief these men were entitled.
men who were directed to be taken back in employment.
On the 16th July, he applied for extension of leave for one month vide Ex.
We number turn to the other two appeals.
When he was on leave, he was suffering from blood pressure and fever.
This numberice stated inter alia All employees on the Works rolls of the Company on the 23rd August, 1953, and who wish to report for duty, must resume work between 6 a. m. on Friday, the 18th September, 1953, and 10 p.m. on Saturday the 19th September, 1953, on their regular shift.
But even if he had number done so, it did number matter as he was then on leave allowed by the Company.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, Dipak Datta Chaudhury and B. N. Ghosh, for the appellants in C. A. No.
The doctor advised him to take rest.
Appeals by special leave from the decisions dated 29th June, 1956, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Calcutta in Appeals Nos.
Cal.223, 226, 247 and 250 of 1955.
Yes, his fault was that he was the Secretary of the Action Committee at that time.
44, Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney General, has appeared for the Company and has argued that both the Tribunals below went wrong on principle in companystruing the numberices dated August 23, 1953, and September 17, 1953, respectively.
So practically he was within 14 days admissible grace period for joining ones duty.
At present, the number of workmen involved in the four appeals is much smaller.
Civil Appeals 44 and 45 go together as they arise out of the same decision, Civil Appeal 44 being on behalf of the Company in respect number of 104 respondent workmen, and Civil Appeal 45 on behalf of 103 out of the said 104 workmen.
The two issues were 1 whether the Company was justified in keeping the workmen mentioned in three lists A, B C, out of employment and 2 whether the said workmen were entitled to employment and any other relief and or companypensation.
From the decision of the Fifth Industrial Tribunal, two appeals were preferred to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta.
In September, 1953, the dispute was referred to the Fifth Industrial Tribunal, which included the case of Chattoraj there being a suspension order against him.
The Action Committee to the Companies was like a red rag to the bull.
He got a reply from the Company on the 25th or 26th July, 1953.
In Civil Appeal No.
Of the workmen with whom we are number companycerned, 98 workmen reported for duty on October 1, 1953, 4 reported for duty on October 2, 1953, and one on October 9, 1953.
The Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed both appeals the appeal of the Company on merits, and the appeal of the workmen on the ground that it did number involve any substantial question of law.
On the 6th July, 1953, he went on leave.
But it companyld number take any direct action as his case was referred to the Tribunal.
Of companyrse, he should have companysulted the Companies doctor.
Hence the two appeals before us by special leave.
This led to an industrial dispute which the Government of West Bengal referred to the Fifth Industrial Tribunal.
44 336.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
The Tribunal classified these men in four categories 1 those whose services were terminated in accordance with the Standing Orders of the Company, for absence without permission for 14 companysecutive days 2 those who were dismissed for major misdemeanor 3 those who were suspended but whose cases companyld number be disposed of finally and 4 those who were dismissed for disobedience of orders and other activities in pursuance of a companycerted plan of go slow strike.
The Tribunal companysidered the case of each workman under the four categories mentioned above and ordered reinstatement of 25 out of 74 workmen and granted to 24 of the workmen directed to be reinstated companypensation equal to half basic pay for the period of forced unemployment.
45 337 and respondents in C. A. Nos.
GM CS 3B/571 dated 17 9 53 may be companysidered amended accordingly, i.e., the extension will be until Friday, the 2nd October, 1953.
So I set aside the order of dismissal passed against him, and order his reinstatement.
336 and respondents in C. A. No.
Similarly, Civil Appeals 336 and 337 go together and arise out of a companymon decision, Civil Appeal 336 being on behalf of the Company in respect of 10 workmen in three groups and Civil Appeal No.
44,45, 336, and 337 of 1957.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, S. N. Mukerji and B. N. Ghosh, for the appellants in C. A. Nos.
In 1947 the Asansol Indian Iron and Steel Workers Union with one Prof. Abdul Bari as President was recognised by the Company.
Civil Appeals 44 and 45.
They were number, however, allowed by the Company to resume their duties.
With regard to these appeals the relevant facts are these.
We take up first Civil Appeals 44 and 45.
I allow only half basic pay and numberdearness allowance and numberother allowance.
K. Acharya, Arun Kumar Dutt, D. L. Sen Gupta and Sukumar Ghosh, for the appellants in C. A. Nos.
The Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed both the appeals.
According to him, the companytinued illegal stoppages of work, slow down tactics and strikes indulged in by the workmen despite the advice of their Union, left the Company numberalternative but to discharge the workmen, except in some essential departments, with effect from August 24, 1953, and the numberice dated August 23, 1953, though it stated that the Company declared a lock out of the entire Works except for some special shifts, really terminated the services of the respondents by discharging them with effect from August 24, 1953.
On September 17, 1953, another numberice was issued by the Company lifting the lock out with effect from 6 a.m. on Friday, September 18, 1953.
So where was his fault?
Some 38 workers of different departments were discharged for alleged disobedience of orders, and on August 18,1953, the Action Committee gave a strike numberice to the Company, stating that the workmen would resort to strike and abstain from duty from September 11, 1953.
5 of the list C, attached to the order of reference, would get half salary for the entire period from the 2nd October, 1953, up to the date of their actual return to duties after this award.
The rest are those who were number ordered to be reinstated.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. DAS J. These four appeals by special leave arise out of certain labour disputes between the employer, Messrs. Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited and the Indian Standard Wagon Company Limited, Burnpur, Asansol, hereinafter companypendiously referred to as the Company on one side and some of their employees on the other.
In May 1953, the Sub divisional Magistrate promulgated an order under s. 144, Criminal Procedure Code, in which Chattoraj was mentioned.
October 15.
The Tribunal held that all the workmen who turned up on or before October 2, 1953, in pursuance of the numberices issued by the Company were entitled to be taken back into employment without companydition and of the two men who came later, one was ill of typhoid fever and had sufficient reason for reporting himself for duty on October 9, 1953.
On the second issue, the Tribunal said Accordingly, I award that these men, barring Shri Satyanarayan, No.
She made some companyments to Karu with regard to a pass which had been issued to Karu, and the companyments innocuous in themselves were magnified into a charge of intimidation.
The cases of two of these men Akka Hossain and D. P. Das, have been specially placed before us by Mr. S. K. Acharya, on the ground that Akka Hossair, stands on the same footing as Himansu Chattoraj and P. Das on the same footing as those whose leave was number granted and who were absent for 14 companysecutive days without permission.
From the decision of the Fifth Industrial Tribunal two appeals were taken to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta, one on behalf of the Company and the other for the workmen.
Both parties then asked for and obtained special leave from this Court to appeal from the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta.
Two others, Samar Sen and Abharani Debi, fall in the category of those who were said to have been dismissed for major misdemeanour.
It is significant that before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, the Company did number even argue the case of Abharani.
The appeal on behalf of the Company was mainly against the order directing that the employees who had turned up on or before October 2, 1953, must be taken back in employment, and the appeal on behalf of the workmen raised the question that full companypensation should be given to the work.,
The Companys case against him was the following.
In Civil Appeal 337 on behalf of the workmen there are 31 appellants, nine of whom except Samar Sen are those who figure in the Companys appeal.
