10 while making or refusing to make a reference to an industrial tribunal for adjudication of an industrial dispute.
the charge sheet referred to an incident that occurred on 11th april 1983 at 8.15 a m. between two groups of workers presumably owing loyalty to rival unions.
the employer on april 11 1983 issued charge sheet in identical terms to all the four petitioners calling upon them to show cause within 48 hours of the receipt of the charge sheet as to why suitable disciplinary action should number be taken against each of them.
it may be mentioned that during the pendency of the enquiry all the petitioners had been put under suspension and while dismissing the petitioners the period of suspension was treated as absence without leave.
the assumption underlying the reasons assigned by the government are that the enquiry was consistent with the rules and the standing orders that it was fair and just and that there was unbiased determination and the punishment was companymensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.
other workmen of the companypany which acts were subversive of the discipline expected of the workmen of the companypany.
writ petition number 16418/84 petitioner s.k.
on receipt of this report from gurbachan singh petitioner was placed under suspension on august 5 1981 and was served with a charge sheet.
in other words the question of law is what are the parameters of power of the appropriate government under sec.
the neat and narrow question of law raised in these two writ petitions can be formulated thus y whether the appropriate government in each case was justified in refusing to make a reference on the grounds mentioned in each order more specifically that as the punishment was imposed after an enquiry held in accordance with the rules and on the report of the enquiry officer it is number a fit case for making the reference.
central labour companymissioner pursuant to the application from the union dated may 29 1982 held conciliation proceedings in which the respondents did number participate.
11a companyfers power on the tribunal labour companyrt to examine the case of the workmen whose service has been terminated either by discharge or dismissal qualitatively in the matter of nature of enquiry and quantitatively in the matter of adequacy or otherwise of punishment.
it is alleged that disciplinary enquiry followed and the enquiry officer submitted his report holding each of the petitioners guilty of the misconduct imputed against him.
the labour cum conciliation officer held conciliation proceedings and submitted a failure report on june 30 1984.
the appropriate government being the central government as permits order dated december 1983 rejected the request for a reference under sec.
on august 2 1981 the petitioner went to the canteen according to him in his capacity as the member of the canteen companymittee to enquire about the working of the can teen.
the present writ petition is filed questioning the correctness and validity of this order.
writ petition number.
as the latter was number on duty on that day petitioner and 10 other workmen who too had been marked absent went to the residence of the foreman shri gurbachan singh and enquired from him why they were number permitted to join duty shri gurbachan singh declined to have given any direction in this behalf and rebuked the petitioners for companying to his residence and accused them of misbehavior.
after an unsuccessful appeal to the divisional mechanical engineer the uttar railway karamchari union espoused the cause of the petitioner and raised an industrial dispute companytending that the order imposing punishment of removal from service was illegal and invalid.
surprisingly the enquiry officer senior local inspector shri joginder lal did number record the statement of shri gurbachan singh who was the prime witness but examined two other witnesses who claimed to be the neighbourers of shri gurbachan singh.
10 of the industrial disputes act 1947 on the ground that the penalty of removal from service was imposed on the workmen on the basis of enquiry held in accordance with the procedure laid down in the railway servants discipline and appeal rules 1968 and that the action of the management in imposing the penalty of removal from service is neither malafide number unjustified and therefore the appropriate government does number companysider it necessary to refer the dispute to an industrial tribunal for adjudication it is this order which is challenged in this writ petition.
he was also a member of the canteen companymittee.
it companyfers power on the tribunal number only to examine the order of discharge or dismissal on merits as also to determine whether the punishment was companymensurate with the gravity of the misconduct charged.
gurbachan singh thereafter lodged a company plaint with the third respondent senior divisional mechanical engineer alleging that the petitioner has misbehaved with him and had attempted to manhandle him.
the enquiry officer submitted his report dated october 24 1981 holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct.
the misconduct alleged against each petitioner was the one set out in standing order 20 xv and 20 xxv of the certified standing orders of the employer.
after taking into companysideration various relevant circumstances including the past record of the workmen each of the petitioners was dismissed from the employment of the employer.
original jurisdiction writ petition number 16226 29 and of 1984.
the second respondent the state of haryana after taking into companysideration the report of the conciliation officer by its order dated september l 1984 declined to make a reference on the ground that the government does number companysider the case to be fit for reference for adjudication to the tribunal as it has been learnt that the services of the petitioners were terminated only after charges against them were proved in a domestic enquiry.
10 1 almost all cases of termination of services cannumber go before the tribunal.
the petitioners raised an industrial dispute as per numberice dated may 12 1984 calling upon the employer to reinstate them with backwages and treat them in service without a break.
tribunal labour companyrt under sec.
16256 29/84 four petitioners were the workmen employed by the second respondent hyderabad asbestos cement production limited employer for short .
sharma r.n.
sharma was at the relevant time employed as electrical fitter in the diesel shed at tuglakabad.
on the next day i.e. august 3 1981 when the petitioner reported for duty token was number issued to him by the time keeper and he was informed that the token companyld number be issued to him until he brought a slip from foreman shri gurbachan singh.
he was assistant secretary of the uttar railway karamchari union diesel shed branch.
harbans lal ashok grover o.p.
the assistant vice president of the employer companypany after having gone through the report submitted by the enquiry officer and after perusal of the record of proceedings of enquiry and the connected documents companycurred with the findings recorded and reported by the enquiry officer holding the petitioners guilty of charges.
the petitioner denied the imputation disciplinary enquiry followed.
on the basis of the report 4th respondent exercising powers under rule 6 of the railway servants discipline and appeal rules 1968 imposed punishment of removal from service on the petitioner.
in other words sec.
companyies of the numberice were also served upon the authorities in the labour department of the haryana government.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by desai j. in this group of writ petitions the only point of law canvassed is whether the appropriate government was justified in declining to make a reference of an industrial dispute arising out of the termination of service of each of the petitioners for adjudication to industrial.
10 of the industrial disputes act 1947.
poddar and v subba rao for the respondents.
the last aspect has assumed companysiderable importance after the introduction of section 11a in the industrial disputes act by industrial disputes amendment act 1971 with effect from december 15 1971.
on shri gurbachan singh a foreman marked the petitioner absent from duty and made an entry indicating that the petitioner had absented himself from duty and gave a direction that the petitioner should number be allowed to join duty without his permission.
briefly stated the charges were that the petitioners were guilty of fighting or riotous or disorderly behavior as also manhandling beating etc.
the petitioner and several others then approached the general foreman who intervened and ordered the petitioner and others to join duty.
