V.S. DESHPANDE, J. - (1.) Three questions of law arise in this case : (1) Whether the meaning and content of the terms of reference made under section 10 read with section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is determined by the nature of the industrial dispute which has been referred for adjudication ? (2) Whether a claim referred for industrial adjudication cannot be enlarged by amendment of pleadings beyond the terms of reference ? and (3) Whether the termination of services by way of a discharge simpliciter which may be valid as being bona fide or invalid as being mala fide or as amounting to dismissal or victimisation or imposition of a penalty etc. does not inelude " retrenchment" which is made for a totally different reason, namely, surplusage resulting from reduction of production or economies effected by the management, etc. ?
(2.) The respondent Girraj Mal was in-charge of the Library of the petitioner Shri Ram Institute for Industrial Research. He was appointed by order dated 30th January 1963 which included the condition that his services could be terminated at one month's notice for every year of service completed (subject to a minimum of one month and maximum of three months' notice) or payment in lieu thereof. On 1st May 1971 his services were terminated by the following letter : "With reference to the discussions which our Management has been having with you, this is to inform you, as per your appointment letter that we would not be requiring your services with immediate effect. We are asking our Accounts Department to settle your accounts as early as possible."
(3.) The Delhi Trade Union Panchayat took up the case of the respondent and wrote to the petitioner on 6th May 1971 that the action of the petitioner in terminating the services of the respondent was improper, unjust, illegal, void and patently mala fide amounting to wrongful termination of service victimisation and unfair labour practice. A demand for reinstatement was made. Another demand for reistatement was made by the respondent himself on 18th May, 1971, inter alia, in the following words : "1. Your order is in fact dismissal from service on account of alleged mistakes and serious omissions including loss of books and alleged in record-keeping etc. 2. Your action is, therefore, improper and mala fide. Your action is also tantamount to "victimisation for my not submitting a letter of apology which you demanded from me for making representation to the Vice-Chairman against the imposition of penalty of stopping two increments on the above charges. 3. The letter by which you have terminated my services does not disclose any reason for termination of my services, although during the discussions referred to in the above letter you again asked me either to tender apology for my making the representation to Vice-Chairman or to tender resignation and threatened me that in case I do not do so my services would be terminated. 4. I also submit that the allegations levelled against me are false. I have also not been given opportunity to explain my position in my enquiry. No charge sheet was ever served on me. Moreover, management has already imposed the penalty of stopping my two increments in the aforesaid charges and it is not open to the management to impose the penalty of termination of service on the same charges.";