CALCUTTA DOCK LABOUR BOARD Vs. BONOMALI MAHANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO questions - both of sufficient intricacy and importance -are involved in this appeal, which arises out of a said for inter ail certain declaratory relieves against a declaration, made by the Chairman, Calcutta Dock Labour Board, and consequential relief's in the shape of appropriate injunction.

(2.) THE plaintiff, whose suit has been decreed by the Court below and who is the contesting respondent before as, was a registered dock worker in the reserve pool of the Calcutta Dock Labour Board. His employment was governed by the Calcutta Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1956, framed under Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948. On 2 March 1959, appellant 2, Chairman, Calcutta Dock Labour Board, made the following declaration under Clause 46(1) of the Calcutta Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme aforesaid: Whereas the undersigned is satisfied that a ' go -slow ' has been resorted to by some gangs of registered dock workers and some individual, workers and is being continued and is being repeated by the same gang and workers as also by different ships; The undersigned, therefore, hereby declares that a 'go -slow' has been resorted to by gangs of registered dock workers and individual workers and is being continued and repeated by the same gang and workers as also by different gangs and workers in the same and different ships. and, on 4 March following, the plaintiff received a charge sheet calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed This action appears to have been taker under Sub -clauses (2) and (3) of the aforesaid Clause 46. The plaintiff submitted his explanation in the Behave of written defense, objecting inter ail to the validity of the above declaration, which was an essential prerequisite to the legality and validity of the above disciplinary proceeding against him. He had meanwhile been placed under suspension on and from 4 March aforesaid. In the circumstances, the plaintiff came to Court with the present suit, claiming inter ail the following reliefs:

(3.) TO the suit, the material defiance was that it was bad in the absence of the statutory notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon defendant 2, that the impugned declaration was perfectly legal, valid and in due accordance with law and that the pending disciplinary proceeding against the plaintiff was fully justified on the merits. All these defences were over -ruled by the learned trial Judge.