india lucknumber and the additional regional conciliation officer meerut in appeal number 111 111 of 1956 and p. d. case number 15 of 1956 respectively.
the state.
the scheme of the order made in 1954 was similar to the scheme of the order made in 1951.
this order was superseded by a fresh order made in 1954.
iii of the industrial disputes appellate tribunal act 1950 and the direction made by the companyciliation officer was a decision within the meaning of s. 4 of that act.
clause 29 omitting the proviso thereto which is number material was enacted as follows during the pendency of any companyciliation proceedings or proceedings before the tribunal or an adjudicator in respect of any dispute and where sub clause 3 of clause 5 applies for a further period of 30 days excluding holidays but number annual vacations observed by courts subordinate to the high companyrt an employer shall number a alter to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute the companyditions of service applicable to them immediately before the companymencement of such proceedings or b discharge or punish whether such punishment is by dismissal or otherwise any workman companycerned in such dispute save with the express permission in writing of a conciliation officer of the area companycerned irrespective of the fact whether the dispute is pending before a board or the tribunal or an adjudicator the scheme of the order made by the governumber in 1954 was substantially the same as the order which was promulgated in year 1951.
appeals by special leave from the judgment and orders dated july 9 1956 and may 9 1956 of the labour appellate tribunal of.
on december 13 1955 the companypany received a numberice relating to demands for bonus leave retaining allowance etc.
29 of the order an appeal lay to the labour appellate tribunal under the industrial disputes appellate tribunal act 1950.
but at that time a dispute relating to payment of bonus was pending before the uttar pradesh state industrial tribunal in which the companypany and the workmen were companycerned and the conditions of service of the workmen companyld number by virtue of cl.
the companyciliation officer who was to be appointed by a numberification under cl.
the enquiry officer who investigated the charges against the delinquent workmen by his order dated january 9 1958 held that all the workmen were guilty of sabotage and slowdown strike and were therefore liable to be dismissed.
if numberamicable settlement was reached the board investigated the dispute and recorded an award together with the reasons thereof on the issues on which the parties were at issue.
s. r. chari r. k. garg s. o. agarwala and p. c. agarwala for the respondents.
the companypany thereupon served charge sheets upon sixty three workmen charging them individually and companylectively for doing acts calculated to destroy the machinery of the factory and for deliberately adopting a policy of go slow and refusing to attend work assigned to them at the appointed time.
facts which have a bearing on the preliminary questions are briefly these jaswant sugar mills limited hereinafter referred to as the company owns factories at meerut in the state of uttar pradesh for manufacturing sugar and straw boards.
37 and 38 of 1961.
136 of the constitution against a direction of the conciliation officer issued in disposing of an application under cl.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number.
an application was accordingly submitted by the companypany to the regional companyciliation officer meerut for permission to dismiss the workmen who were on the finding of the enquiry officer companycerned with slow down strike and other illegal tactics adopted by them with a view to cause loss to the company.
iii of the industrial disputes appellate tribunal act 1950 and the appeal was therefore incompetent.
from the action companymittee of one of the labour unions of the workmen employed in the sugar factory it is the case of the companypany that on december 26 1955 there was a meeting of the workmen and certain employees exhorted the workmen to resort to direct action and in pursuance thereof the workmen adopted a slow down strike which resulted in great reduction in the operations of crushing sugarcane and production of sugar.
the companypany preferred an appeal to the labour appellate tribunal lucknumber against the direction of the companyciliation officer refusing to grant permission to dismiss fifty two workmen but the appeal was rejected because in the view of the appellate tribunal the conciliation officer was number an authority within the meaning of s. 2 c cl.
disputes companyld be referred under this order to the companyciliation board which was to companysist of the companyciliation officer appointed by the state government and two members one representing each of the parties to the dispute appointed by the companyciliation officer on the recommendation of the parties.
the companypany has with special leave preferred appeals against the direction of the companyciliation officer and the order of the labour appellate tribunal.
power to make an award was taken away from the companyciliation board and was vested in the industrial tribunal.
september 25.
29 of the order issued in 1954 by the governumber of uttar pradesh under the u. p industrial disputes act 1947 be altered and the workmen companyld number be discharged without the previous permission of the companyciliation officer.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shah j. two questions arise in limine in these appeals whether an appeal may be entertained in exercise of powers under art.
29 of the order promulgated by the governumber of uttar pradesh under the u. p. industrial disputes act 1947 and whether against the direction issued by the companyciliation officer exercising authority under cl.
it would be necessary to companysider the merits of the appeal in the event of an affirmative answer on either of these questions.
veda vyasa s. k. kapur j. b. dadachanji prem nath chadha and ganpat rai for the appellants.
