On May 7, Keayamat was also given a similar letter, explaining to him the details of the charge aforesaid, with reference to the time, place and date of the acts which formed the gravamen of the charge against him.
It has companypletely omitted to companysider the letter issued to both these workmen on May 7, giving full particulars of the charges against them.
Keayamat also demurred to the charge in the same way that it was vague, and that he was number aware of anything wrong having been done by him.
The appellants alleged that they had dismissed their workmen as a result of the inquiry held by their numberinee into the companyduct of the persons who had participated in the alleged illegal strike and or had caused obstruction, before they became aware of the companystitution of the Board of Conciliation, as aforesaid.
Another lock out numberice was issued on August 13, 1955, in respect of a much larger number of workmen in different groups described as belonging to a particular Sardars gang.
From the proceedings of the Conciliation Officer, it appears that the Union applied to the appellants for leave to five workmen, officials of the Union, to enable them to represent the workmen in the companyciliation proceedings.
As a result of this agreement, the appellants agreed, inter alia, to introduce permanent direct employment at all the transhipment ghats of Assam, progressively, without prejudicing the agreement of May 3, 1954.
A number of witnesses were examined by Raymond who held the inquiry.
If number, to what relief, if any, are the workers entitled ?
On September 8, 1955, 37 of the employees were companyvicted under s. 188 of the Indian Penal Code, for violation of the aforesaid order under s. 144 of the Criminal Procedure, Code, with the result that on September 9, they were Dismissed by the appellants.
The appellants, thereupon, numberified the Indian National Trade Unions Congress, that recognition to the Dhubri Transhipment Labour Union, was being withdrawn pending satisfactory settlement of the internal differences.
The attitude of the appellants was that they were agreeable to grant leave even on a verbal request, if the request came from those individual workmen, either direct or through the Union, but the appellants were number prepared to grant leave on a petition from the Union alone.
It also directed the appellants to pay full wages and allowances from August 20, 1955, till the date of reinstatement of the workmen who had been directed to be reinstated.
The Tribunal has observed that it appeared also from the appellants attitude in refusing to grant leave to the five representatives of the Union, that the appellants were number inclined to give facilities for the companyciliation proceedings.
at different river stations in India and in Pakistan, for the purposes of their business.
On companying to know of the companystitution of the said Board of Conciliation, the appellants subsequently passed orders, holding the order of dismissal of the two hundred and twenty three employees in abeyance, pending the disposal of their application to the Board for permission to dismiss the said two hundred and twenty three employees.
As regards the remaining two hundred and twenty three workmen, orders were passed on September 16, to the effect that as the departmental inquiry made against them, had resulted in the charges against them being proved, they were dismissed from the service of the appellants with effect from August 29, 1955.
The charge against Jahangir was two fold, namely, 1 wilful insubordination and disobedience, and 2 companyduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.
He held companyciliation proceedings on August 6, 1955, but those proceedings ended abruptly without arriving at any settlement.
Before May, 1954, such workmen were employed by a companytractor called the Assam Labour Supply Syndicate which will hereinafter be referred to as the Syndicate.
To these charges, Jahangir demurred and objected, saying he companyld number understand the reasons for the charge sheet .
With reference to the case against Panchu Shah and Ram Ekbal Singh, it appears that the Tribunal definitely came to the companyclusion that their dismissal order was vitiated because it was an act of victimization and was mala fide.
It is number absolutely clear as to when this report of the Conciliation Officer was actually received by the Government.
As regards the permission sought by the Management to dismiss the suspended two hundred and twenty three workmen, again by a majority, those two members were of the opinion that although the strike was prima facie illegal, it was number unjustified and therefore, the permission sought, companyld number be given.
The Tribunal, by its Award, directed reinstatement of 208 out of 260 workmen whom the appellants had dismissed, or had sought permission to dismiss.
But those workmen who were alleged to have only participated in the strike, were number suspended during the inquiry.
The Workers Union called off the strike with effect from August 19, and the appellants lifted the lock out with effect from August 27.
As a result of those internal dissensions amongst the employees, two rival groups, each claiming to represent a section of the workmen, came into existence.
natives of the appellants, the workmen and the Government of Assam.
The Tripartite Conference companytemplated by the Agreement, was to companysist of the represent.
As regards the permission sought by the Management to dismiss the suspended two hundred and twenty three workmen, by a similar majority, it was held that although the strike prima facie was illegal, it was number unjustified.
O, p. 119 .
Niharendu Dutt Mazumdar and Dipak Dutta Choudhri, for the respondents.
There were differences between the Syndicate and its employees who made certain demands, and has threatened to go on strike to enforce their demands.
At that station, a large number of workmen are employed for the purpose of loading and unloading the appellants vessels and for transshipping goods from railway wagons to the appellants vessels and vice versa.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated November 15, 1956, of the Industrial Tribunal, Assam, at Dhubri.
If number, what relief, if any, are they entitled to ?
The parties to the dispute were apprised of this meeting of August 6, 1955, on August 1, 1955 ext.
The remaining 52 workmen were ordered to be refused reinstatement on the ground that they had been companyvicted under s. 143 of the Indian Penal Code, which implied an offence involving use of criminal force.
Then followed an annexure companytaining ten demands which need number be set out here.
Those workmen were organized under two labour unions, called 1 the Dhubri Transhipment Labour Union which was affiliated to the Indian National Trade Union Congress which is, a Federation of Trade Unions, and 2 the Dhubri Local Ghat Transhipment Labour Union.
On August 8, 1955, the said Conciliation Officer, who was the Labour Officer of Gauhati, by his letter bearing the same date, informed the Labour Commissioner, Assam, about the failure of the companyciliation proceedings, and forwarded companyies of that letter to the appellants and the workmens Union at Dhubri.
One such station is at Dhubri in Assam.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, S. N. Mukherjee and B. N. Ghose, for the appellants.
It is necessary to state the following, facts in order to appreciate the points arising for decision in this case The appellants carry on business of inland water transport in North East India and in Pakistan, in association with each other, and are companymonly known as the Joint Steamer Companies.
2 a Are the Management of R.S.N. I.G.N. Railway Company Limited justified in dismissing and or suspending as the case may be 260 workers at Dhubri Ghat on or about the 29th August, 1955?
In both these cases, the Tribunal refused to accept the result of the inquiry, chiefly on the ground that numberspecific charge had been laid against them, and that the allegations were much too vague.
The appellants took proceedings against those employees who had taken part in the strike.
This companyclusion was sought to be based on the alleged legal position that the Board had numberpower to withhold the permission applied for, and had number the power to decide as to the kind of punishment to be imposed upon the workmen who had admittedly taken part in a strike which had unanimously been held to be illegal.
It will be necessary hereinafter to companysider some of the terms of this agreement in detail, when dealing with the several points in companytroversy between the parties.
On July 26, 1955, the Conciliation Officer of the Government of Assam, received the numberice of the strike.
Without waiting for the statutory period of seven days from the date of failure of the companyciliation proceedings, a large number of workmen companycerned went on strike with effect from the mid night of August 10, 1953, in pursuance of the numberices of strike aforesaid.
The report of the Board of Conciliation was published on Decem ber 5, 1955.
On July 21, 1955, one B. Chakravarty, Secretary, Dhubri Transhipment Labour Union, served a numberice on the appellants under sub s. i of s. 22 of the Act, that I propose to call a strike on the 11th August, 1955, from zero hours, if the following demands be number fulfilled within fourteen days on receipt of this numberice.
They suspended those workmen who were alleged to have number only taken part in the strike, but also had obstructed those workmen who were willing to work.
The legality of these lock out numberices, was seriously challenged by the respondents.
Meanwhile, between May 2, 1955, and July 31, 1955, the appellants, on five different occasions and on different charges, dismissed eight of their employees, after making such inquiries as they thought necessary against those workmen, and after giving them each an opportunity of explaining their companyduct.
Meanwhile, on September 13, 1955, the Government of Assam bad companystituted a Board of Conciliation, companysisting of three persons, namely, 1 Labour Commissioner of Assam, as the Chairman, 2 D. N. Sarma of Gauhati, as representing the interest of the employees, and 3 P. J. Rayfield, as representing the interest of the employers, with a view to promoting settlement of the dispute between the appellants and their workmen at Dhubri.
The Tribunal made its Award which was published in the Assam Gazette on December 19, 1956, as already stated.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.86 of 1958.
He fixed August 6, 1955, 10 a.m., at Dhubri, for the companyciliation proceedings.
In recording this finding, the Tribunal has fallen into a grievous error of record.
2, Fairlie Place, Calcutta, which will be referred to, in the companyrse of this judgment, as the appellants, and their workmen at Dhubri Ghat, represented by the Dhubri Transshipment Labour Union and Dhubri Local Ghat Transhipment Labour Union, Dhubri, which will be referred to hereinafter as the respondents.
The dissenting numbere also sought to show that the finding of the majority of the Board that the strike was justified, was number based on a proper appreciation of the facts of the case.
Conciliation proceedings under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act , took place, in the companyrse of which certain agreements to be referred to in greater detail hereinafter, were reached between the Syndicate and the respondents on February 23, 1953, and March 30, 1953.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA C. J. This is an appeal by special leave from the Award dated November 15, 1956, made by the Industrial Tribunal, Assam.
Another batch of 52 employees were companyvicted under a 143/188 of the Indian Penal Code, on February 17,1956.
The Board of Conciliation, by majority, P. J. Rayfield dissenting, came to the companyclusion that as regard the dismissal of the thirty seven workmen, the Management had violated s. 33 of the Act, because, in their opinion, the proceedings of the Board of Conciliation had companymenced from August 26, and number from September 13.
Thus, came into existence, a new Trade Union known as the Dhubri Transhipment Workers Union, in or about July, 1955.
The Award aforesaid was published in the Assam Gazette on December 19, 1956.
A similar numberice was also served by the Secretary Dhubri Local Ghat Transhipment Labour Union on the same date the annexure in this case companytaining eleven demands.
The strike is, therefore, alleged to have been illegal.
This is the first reason assigned by the Tribunal for companying to the companyclusion that the strike was perfectly justified.
The appellants also agreed to maintain companytinuity of service of the workmen and the existing terms and companyditions of their service.
As the parties had companye to a stalemate, the Government of Assam, by its order dated December 7, 1955,as subsequently amended by its order dated January 23, 1956, referred the dispute to Shri Radhanath Hazarika as an Industrial Tribunal, for the adjudication of the dispute on the following issues 1 a Are the Management of R.S.N. I.G.N. Railway Company Limited justified in dismissing the following eight workers Manzoor Hussain, Sudam Singh, ldrish, Tazmal Hussain S o K. Gaffur Jahangir Sardar, Keayamat Hossain, Panchu Shah and Ram Ekbal Singh?
October 14.
On the same date, that is, August 9,1955, B. Chakravarty, the Secretary of the Dhubri Transhipment Labour Union, addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Goalpara, and Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara, alleging that the Joint Agent of the appellants had instructed the officers in charge of the jetties at the Ghats to raise a hallah after the zero hour of August 11, 1955, that the labourers of the Transhipment Department were looting the goods of the ship, when they would go for picketing purposes to strengthen their strike.
On May 3, 1954, by virtue of a Memorandum of that date, an agreement was arrived at between the appellants and the respondents, whereby the appellants agreed that instead of employing a companytractor to handle the work of loading and unloading and transhipment of goods, the appellants would employ supervisors and agents to handle the work pending the proposed Tripartite Conference to decide the issue of permanent direct employment of employees for the future .
As already indicated, the Conciliation Officer received a companyy of the strike numberice on July 26, 1955.
The dissenting member, P. J. Rayfield, recorded his numbere of dissent to the effect that the companyciliation proceedings companymenced on September 13, 1955, and number earlier, as decided by the majority, and companysequently, the dismissal of the,thirty seven workmen discharge of 37 workmen, as stated in the numbere of dissent , was number in companytravention of s. 33 of the Act, and that the permission to dismiss the two hundred and twenty three workmen on the ground that they had been found guilty, by a departmental inquiry, of participating in an illegal strike and forcibly preventing others from attending work, should have been granted.
4, Fairlie Place, Calcutta, and the Rivers Steam Navigation Company Limited, carrying on business at No.
The present appeal by special leave is directed against the said Award of the Tribunal.
Those allegations of the Secretary, the Tribunal has taken as proof of those allegations, and has observed it is clear that Mr. Milner hatched a plan to create a trouble and the Secretary of the Union got scent of all the secret arrangements made by the Company to create disturbance at the Ghats just immediately after the strike is declared.
The dispute arose between the employers, the Indian General Navigation Railway Company Limited, carrying on business at No.
They were alleged by the appellants number only to have gone on strike, but also to have forcibly entered the appellants jetties and other working places and prevented the loyal workmen, who were willing to carry on the transhipment work, from carrying on their numbermal work.
The parties to the dispute filed their written statement before the Tribunal and tendered both oral and documentary evidence before it.
The appellants jointly maintain a large number of wharves, jetties, godowns, etc.,
The Tribunal held that the strike, though illegal, was justified, but that in the absence of standing orders whereby participation in any illegal strike, companyld justify a punishment of dismissal, the appellants were number entitled to dismiss those workmen whose case was before the Tribunal.
In this case, the report to the Government was made by the Conciliation Officer on August 8, 1955.
This charge against those four workmen, was examined by a Magistrate who tried them for the alleged assault on Tewari.
The second reason for companying to this companyclusion, according to the Tribunal, is to be found in the Conciliation Officers report that the appellants did number agree to grant leave to the labour representatives to sit in the companyciliation proceedings which were held on August 6, 1955.
On this demurrer, a letter dated May 7, 1955, was issued to him, giving him the details of the acts charged against him, with reference to the time, date and place.
The charge against Keayamat was similarly, a two fold one, namely, 1 disorderly behaviour and inciting others to disturbance and violence, and 2 companyduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.
Then followed a specification of the ghats to which the prohibition applied This order was to remain in force till September 10, 1955, In companysequence of the aforesaid strike which was treated by the appellants as illegal, they declared a lock out on August 11, 1955, in respect of 91 workmen named in the numberice issued to them.
