He further pleaded that the charges.
A Committee of Enquiry was appointed, companysisting of Shri Deodutta Gaur as Chairman, and Bhailal and Vishvadeo Purohit as members to enquire into the charges against Kanraj.
Kanraj did number companyply with this direction and companytinued to send further applications for leave accompanied by the certificates ofthe Vaid.
of the record available before the Committee.
CCS Est.
on 20th April, 1956 and asking him to report to Dr. I B. P. Mathur for medical examination.
When this point was raised on behalf of the appellant, a preliminary objection was taken by learned companynsel appearing for the respondents that this plea sought to be raised on behalf if the appellant was barred by the principle of res judicata.
In that reply, he took the plea that here were numberdisciplinary framed and issued for the employees of the Society, and added that, if the rules were being enforced on the analogy of the Railway Rules, he would request the Secretary of the Society to let him know what offence he had companymitted and how that offence bad been companystituted.
A Division Bench of the High Court, by its judgment dated 7th February, 1962, dismissed the petition holding that the reference was companypetent on the ground that it was at least sponsored by 4 out of 11 workmen of the Society.
Garg, S. C. Agarwala, Marudhar Mridul and Mohan, Lai Calla, for respondent No.
of 19 4 1956 which goes to show that you were number prepared to face the medical examination as you had pretended to be sick.
Appeal by special leave from the award dated October 7 1963 of the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan Jaipur in Case No.
L. Gosain, S. C. Malik, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for the appellant.
It was urged that, while the reference was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, the Society filed a petition under Art.
The information of the companystitution of this Committee was companyveyed to Kanraj by the letter dated 28th June 1956, and he was also told that he would be allowed to be accompanied by any employee of the Society at the enquiry if he so desired, but number by any other person as requested by him.
In the report, the Committee first companysidered the questions.
On 17th September, 1956, a letter was then issued under the signature of the Honorary Secretary informing Kanraj that he had been removed from service with elect from the 17th September, 1956, and he was asked to hand over charge to the Accountant, Megh Raj.
Once again the grievance made included the plea that the charges were vague.
was illegal or unjustified If so, what relief these worker are entitled to ?
Kanraj, however companytinued to insist that he must be permitted to be accompanied by a Railway employee or a Union official, particularly because he was the senior most employee of the Society and he companyld number expect to get.
that the dispute had number been taken up by the workmen, of the Society and the sponsoring of the dispute by the Railway Employees Union did number make it an industrial dispute.
226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, praying that a writ of prohibition be issued directing the Industrial Tribunal to refrain from taking any proceedings in this reference on the ground that the reference did number relate to an industrial dispute.
The plea that the reference did number relate to an industrial dispute was on the same ground which was sought to be urged before us, viz.,
In the reference, two issues were raised which were as follows Whether the removal of Shri Kanraj by the Management of the Northern Railway Co operative Credit Society, Jodhpur on the 17 9 19,56 and the stopping of the grade increments of Sarvashri Acheleshwar V. D. Sharma and G. Saxena.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava, J. The appellant in this appeal, brought up by special leave, is the Northern Railway Co operative Credit Society Ltd., Jodhpur hereinafter referred to as the Society which is an Association of the employees of the Northern Railway at Jodhpur registered in 1920 under the Co operative Societies Act.
He added that on receipt of this material, he would reply to the above show cause numberice.
Thereafter, on 5th September, 1956, the Vice Chairman issued a fresh numberice to Kanraj, stating that he had companye to the provisional decision that Kanraj should be dismissed from service for offences detailed in the charge sheet, and calling upon him to show cause in writing number later than the end of seven days from the date of receipt of the numberice why the proposed penalty should number be imposed upon him.
In this letter, he made a grievance of the fact that he had number been permitted to be represented as desired by him in the enquiry, and took numberice of the fact that the provisional decision of the Vice Chairman had been arrived at on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Committee which only reported that he did number parti cipate.
The Society had in its employment 10 or 11 persons including Kamraj Mehta, the Head Clerk, Madho Lal, the Accountant, and three other Clerks, A. C. Sharma, V. D. Sharma and G. S Saxena.
Kanraj, on 16th September, 1956, sent a further letter in reply to this letter sent by the Hony.
14 of 1947.
In this subsequent report, the Committee added that, before arriving at the decision, it had examined all evidence on record independently, and had also examined three to four witnesses verbally and had found that they companyroborated the evidence already on record.
On, 25th May, 1956,.
Thereupon, Kanraj, on 13th September, 1956, sent a letter requesting the Vice Chairman to supply to him a full ,copy of the proceedings and findings of the Enquiry Committee enumerated in its report, which had been companysidered by the Vice Chairman resulting in the provisional decision to remove him from service.
496 of 1965.
The industrial dispute decided by the award, against which the present appeal is directed, related to four of these Clerks Kanraj Mehta, A. C. Sharma, V. D. Sharma and G. S. Saxena, against whom the Society decided to take disciplinary action, The case of the Society was that these persons had companyspired to paralyse the working of the Society at of the impending Annual,General Meeting on 28th April, 1956, by companylectively submitting sickness certificates.
Minor punishments were also awarded to three other employees, A. C. Sharma, V D. Sharma and G. S. Saxena.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL Appeal No.
The report of the Committee mentions that it decided to submit its report and findings on the basis of the record before the Enquiry Committee, and that, thereafter, the evidence already available on record, which had been earlier companysidered by the Vice Chairman before issue of the charge sheet, was duly examined, The Committee further companysidered it inadvisable to companyment on this material as it held it to be as good as before and recorded its view that the charges still stood proved.
The Honorary Secretary of the Society, on the same day, sent a reply to this letter, stating that the application of Kanraj had been companysidered by the Vice Chairman who had asked the Secretary to inform him that it was only as a matter of grace that he was being given another three days to reply to the show cause numberice, and that there was numberenquiry report envisaged in the Railway Boards order as the enquiry companyld number be held.
but, by subsequent applications, he companytinued to extend his leave up to 2nd May, 1956.
Ultimately, on the date fixed for enquiry, Kanraj refused to appear on the ground that he had number been allowed to be represented as desired by him.
The Tribunal discussed in detail the case of Kanraj and held that the demand of Kanraj to be allowed to take assistance from a stranger to the Society was unjustified and Kanraj companyld number succeed in assailing the validity of the proceedings of the Board of Enquiry on this ground.
Then he proceeded to plead number guilty to the charges and again gave an explanation on each individual charge.
Thereafter, Kanraj Mehta, the Head Clerk, on 8th April, 1956, applied for leave on medical grounds, having submitted a certificate from a registered Vaid.
It was stated that the witnesses examined verbally related to charges i , iii , iv and v in the report ii is an error for iii .
Secretary.
On receipt of this report, the Vice Chairman of the Society asked the Committee to give its independent opinion in the case as to whether Kanraj was guilty of the charges levelled or number.
Kanraj sent his reply to the charge sheet.
In reply to this, the Committee mentioned that the charges stood proved.
His leave applications were never actually sanctioned, but he was allowed to resume duty after the expiry of the leave asked for by him in his last application, i.e on 3rd May, 1956.
Initially, the application for leave was for four days,.
At a meeting of the Committee of Management held on 6th April, 1956, it was decided to hold the 36th and 37th Annual General Meeting of the Shareholders for the years 1953 54 and 1954 55 on 28th April, 1956, i.e., after a period of about 22 days.
Secretarys letter No.
In the case of Kanraj Mehta, the Society issued a letter in response to his application for leave directing him to attend the Railway Dispensary, at 7.45 hrs.
The Committee then submitted its report on 4th August, 1956.
The other.
2 of 1959.
whether it should proceed to record evidence of persons who had lodged companyplaints regarding the charges leveled against Kanraj, or whether it should submit its report and findings on the basis.
Disobedience of orders in number attending for Medical Examination vide Hony.
Then on the 19th.
Taking active part in the issue and distribution of certain leaflets issued against the Management of the Society.
The Tribunal also accepted the plea of Kanraj that the charges which had been framed against Kanraj were rather vague and Kanraj was number wrong in his averment before the Board of Enquiry that the charges were vague and that he companyld number defend himself on that account.
any assistance from any other junior employee. ,
day, 1956, the Society issued a charge sheet against Kanrai Mehta companytaining five charges which .are reproduced below To instigate and companyspire to paralyse the working of the Society at the time of the impending Annual General Meeting on 28 4 1956 by companylectively submitting sick certificates.
four Clerks, mentioned above, also, put in applications between 12th and 15th April, 1956 on similar Medical Certificates and companytinued their leave up to dates falling between 30th April and 4th May, 1956.
Thereupon, the dispute relating to the removal of Kanraj and the award of punishment to the other three employees.
leveled against him were vague and were number specific.
It was further added that the report was only that the employee did number participate, and Kanraj was told that any dilatory replies would number be taken as proper replies and action would be taken under the Rules.
This companyrespondence went on, and his request was number acceded to.
He then proceeded to deal with all the five charges, and in the case of four of them viz.,
At the end, he made a request that if an.
The Tribunal also made suitable orders in the cases of the other three employees C. Sharma, V. D. Sharma and G. S. Saxena, but the orders in their cases need number be reproduced, as the appeal before us does number relate to their cases.
i , iii , iv and v the plea put forward was that in the absence of details he companyld number answer the a charges properly, though he denied those charges.
enquiry is held, he should be allowed to bring either a Railway or a trade Union official, specially shareholders who had interest in the Societys affairs and companystituted the very structure of the Society in order to represent him.
was taken up by the Uttariya Railway Mazdoor Union, Jodhpur, and at the request sent through the Secretary of that Union a reference was made by the Government of Rajasthan to the Industrial Tribunal1, Rajasthan, Jaipur, under s. 10 1 d of, the Industrial Disputes Act No.
