According to the appellant, on August 27, 1970, Sadhu Singh instigated the workmen to down tools and go on a sit down strike.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 7 1 1973 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No.
The appellant challenges the findings of the Labour Court.
It found that the domestic inquiry was number proper inasmuch as numberice of the inquiry had failed to reach Sadhu Singh because it had been sent to a wrong address, thereby preventing him from participating in the domestic inquiry.
Meanwhile the management had taken action dismissing other workmen also.
A few days after, Sadhu Singh wrote to the Labour Commissioner claiming that he was number a signatory to the settlement and that he would settle his dispute himself with the management.
On August 26, 1970 the workmen resorted to a sit down strike, which companytinued the next day.
The remaining workmen agreed to resume work unconditionally.
While the management took its stand on the facts found in the domestic inquiry report and relied on the circumstance that the settlement dated November 21, 1970 was binding on Sadhu Singh, Sadhu Singh asserted that he was number guilty of any misconduct on August 27, 1970.
The dismissal of all the workmen formed the subject of a settlement under s.12 of the Act on November 21, 1970, and it was agreed that the dismissed workmen, including Sadhu Singh, should be regarded as retrenched from service.
The Labour Court by its order dated September 20, 1972 found that Sadhu Singh was number a signatory to the settlement of November 21, 1970, and was, therefore, number bound by it.
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court against the award, but the writ petition was dismissed.
785 of 1975.
In support of its case that Sadhu Singh was present within the factory premises on August 27, 1970, the management placed reliance on a document purporting to have been signed by the workmen and setting forth the assurance that he would companyduct himself properly and be of good behaviour.
The findings being accepted by the management an order followed on September 14, 1970 dismissing Sadhu Singh from service with immediate effect.
The Labour Court held that the dismissal was number justified and that Sadhu Singh was entitled to reinstatement with companytinuity of previous service and full back wages.
K. Sen, S. K. Gambhir, A. K. Panda and Miss Ramrakhiani for the Appellant.
The State Government referred the dispute in regard to the termination of Sadhu Singhs service for adjudication to the Labour Court, Rohtak.
Yogeshwar Prasad, A. K. Srivastava and Miss Rani Chhabra for the Respondent No.
The workman, it is said, declined to accept the charge sheet and, although he was directed to appear before the Inquiry Officer, Sadhu Singh did number participate in the inquiry.
Successive numberices by the management the same day failed to dissolve the strike.
And number this appeal.
Now Section 36 of the Act provides for representation of the parties to a dispute.
The memorandum of settlement was signed by the management on the one hand and the individual workmen on the other.
He also companytended that the charge sheet had never been served on him and therefore the exparte domestic inquiry was vitiated.
Before the expiry of that period, however, a fresh demand was raised on August 17, 1970 by the General Labour Union asking for dearness allowance at 25 per cent.
Demands by the workmen for an improvement in the companyditions of their service led to companyciliation proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Act , and on June 20, 1969, a settlement under s. 12 of the Act in satisfaction of those demands was recorded by the Conciliation officer.
The President of the General Labour Union then pressed the management to reinstate Sadhu Singh.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The management demurred, and explained that having regard to the structure of wages and allowances number payable under the settlement, there was numberjustification for the demand.
The appellant is a private limited companypany which manufactures machine tools as its factory in Faridabad.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana summarily dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant.
Charges were framed against Sadhu Singh alleging serious misconduct and a domestic enquiry was ordered.
The second respondent, Sadhu Singh, is one of them.
According to him, the strike was illegal, and Sadhu Singh was guilty of instigating the workmen to go on strike, and besides he was guilty of loitering in the factory.
The Labour Court made its award on September 30, 1972.
On September 13, 1970, the Inquiry officer submitted his report to the management.
6677/74.
It employs 250 workmen.
The settlement included a provision that the workmen would number raise any demand involving further financial burden on the appellant for a period of two years.
