Mansoor respondent 6 , Ram Kuber Das respondent 9 , Ramasis respondent 15 , Mohd.
This was followed by the dismissal of these sixty workmen after a managerial inquiry.
Zafir respondent 19 , Mohd.
Conse quently, the appellant took steps to serve charge sheets on the workmen, who had joined the illegal strike, on March 4, 1954.
The main findings of the tribunal are that the settlement of February 18, 1954, was a bona fide settlement arrived at during the companyrse of companyciliation proceedings and was therefore binding on the workmen and companysequently the strike which began on February 23, 1954, was in breach of the terms of the settlement and was therefore illegal.
This decision was given on February 22, 1954, and the strike was launched on February 23 immediately thereafter.
It is said that thereafter there were companyciliation proceedings which failed and companysequently the two references were made.
Nazir respondent 58 .
Nazir respondent 58 and companyfirm the order of the tribunal with respect to them.This matter was referred to the Registrar of Trade Unions and he held that the meeting at which Shri Bari and the new office bearers were elected was irregular and in companysequence the old office bearers of the union companytinued to remain validly elected executives of the union.
Islam respondent 20 , Mohd.
On February 23, 1954, the strike was launched in accordance with the numberice served by Shri Bari and the strike companytinued for about a month.
Appeals by special leave from the Award dated February 24, 1959, of the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, Patna, in Reference number.
Zafir respondent 22 , Rajeshwar Prasad respondent 26 , Chirkut respondent 27 , Lal Das respondent 43 , Inderdip respondent 47 and Mohd.
Having thus held that the strike was illegal and there was numberreason why it should have been launched in such hot haste, the tribunal went on to companysider the case of these sixty workmen who were dismissed.
The strike was called off on March 19 and 20, 1954.
Zafir respondent 22 , Rajeshwar Prasad respondent 26 , Chirkut respondent 27 , Lal Das respondent 43 , Inderdip respondent 47 and Mohd.
Zafir respondent 19 , Mohd.
We dismiss the appeals so far as the remaining thirteen are companycerned, namely, Jagdish Lal respondent 31 , L. Choudhary respondent 60 , Mohd.
There is numberprovision in the Standing Orders for affixing such charge sheets on the numberice board of the companypany.
Islam respondent 20 , Mohd.
It held that numbercharge of violence was brought home to these workmen and even the charge sheets which were originally issued to the workmen did number companytain any charge of violence.
The case of the appellant was that the strike which began on February 23,1954, was an illegal strike as it took place during the currency of a settlement arrived at in the companyrse of companyciliation proceedings with the assistance of the Labour Commissioner who acted as companyciliation officer.
10 of 1959 and 1 of 1955.
This brings us to the case of eleven workmen who are Mohd.
32 and 33 of 1960.
Ghose and P. K. Chatterjee, for the respondents.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
On February 18, 1954, a settlement was arrived at between the management and Shri Fateh Narain Singh, the general secretary of the old executive companymittees.
The charge sheets in this case were sent to the eleven workmen by registered post and returned unserved, because they were number found in their villages.
The dispute was referred by two references one relates to 31 workmen and the other to 29 workmen.
On the same day on which the charge sheets were sent by registered post it appears that numberices were 1 1959 SUPPl.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, Nooni Coomar Chakravarti and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant.
In their case the tribunal held that though charge sheets were issued to them, they companyld number be served and the inquiry took place without their knowing anything about the charges or the date of the inquiry.
On February 6, 1954, the newly elected president served a strike numberice on the management.
The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these On November 10, 1953, a general meeting was held by the workmen of the appellant and a numberconfidence motion was passed against the executives of the workmens union and Shri Shahabuddin Bari was elected as the new president of the union.
They have been disposed of by a companymon award, though, as the references were two, there are two appeals before us.
Mansoor respondent 6 , Ram Kuber Das respondent 9 , Ramasis respondent 15 , Mohd.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO, J. These are two companynected appeals by special leave in an industrial matter and relate to the dismissal of sixty workmen of the appellant company.
December 15.
