MANAGEMENT OF GLAXO INDIA LTD. Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND THREE ORS.
LAWS(GAU)-1994-5-23
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on May 04,1994

MANAGEMENT OF GLAXO INDIA LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Assam And Three Ors. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MAHAPATRA V. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
GURCHARAII DASS CHADHA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

B.N. Sarma, J. - (1.)CIVIL Rule No. 2402/93 has been filed with a prayer that Reference No. 18/88 pending in the Labour Court, Assam Guwahati be transferred to some other Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal in the State of Assam.
(2.)THE brief facts are as follows : That an Industrial dispute was raised by the Respondent No. 4 before Labour -cum -Conciliation Officer at Silchar. The Conciliation having failed the Labour -Cum -Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report to the Government of Assam and the Government of Assam vide notification dated August 19, 1988 referred the following issues to the Labour Court of Assam at Gauhati. In exercise of the power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The issues are as follows;
Issues: - -

(a) Whether the Management of M/s Glindia Ltd. are justified in suspending Shri Ranjit Acharya, Medical representative with effect from September 8, 1987 for his trade union activities : actuated with the motive and subsequent dismissal from service with effect from February 25, 1988?

(b) If not, is the said workman entitled to reinstatement with full back wages with other benefits or any other relief in lieu thereof?

Accordingly, a case was registered in the Labour Court of Assam at Guwahati as reference case No. 18/88. On the prayer of the petitioner company, the Labour Court, Assam at Guwahati framed the preliminary issues for adjudication which are as follows:

(1) Whether the learned Labour Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute as pleaded in the management's written statement?

(2) Whether the domestic enquiry held by the management is fair and proper?

(3.)WITH regard to the aforesaid two preliminary issues, the petitioner company examined two witnesses and Shri Ranjit Acharya examined himself in support of his case. By order dated March 1, 1993, the Labour Court decided the preliminary issues against the management and in favour of the Union. Being aggrieved by the said order, the management moved a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court which is pending as Civil Rule No. 1553/93. This Court rejected the prayer for stay and asked the Labour Court to complete the proceeding within a period of 6 months. The petitioner submits that in between February 4, 1993 and the date of passing the order on March 1, 1993, the Labour Court did not give opportunity to the petitioner to take proper steps in the proceedings. Their allegations are as follows: -
(i) On February 4, 1993 the cross -examination was completed and the Labour Court asked the parties to argue the matter on that very day itself without the certified copy. Application was filed on behalf of the Management for grant of time but the same was rejected.

(ii) Subsequently, on February 8, 1993 an application was filed to fix the case on February 5 15, 1993 but the same was also rejected.

(iii) By Annexure -III a prayer was made to correct the answer given by Shri R. Acharya and as such a prayer was made that the Court may be pleased to correct the answer or in the alternative may be pleased to recall the witnesses to put same question again. That was also turned down and thereafter as stated earlier the order was passed on March 1, 1993.

(iv) Grievances have been made that on different date i.e. December 21, 1992; May 14, 1993, and June 22, 1993, the costs were awarded against the management @ Rs. 500/ -; Rs. 1,000/ - and Rs. 3,000/ - respectively.

(v) Next grievance is that witnesses were examined on August 16, 1993, August 17, 1993 and August 18, 1993 and the statements of these witnesses were not recorded properly and as such applications were filed on August 18, 1993 which is annexed as Annexure VII. This is a verified application verified by one Madhusudhan Dutta and the prayer made therein is that the statements as mentioned in their applications be recorded as the statement of Shri MM. Kapoor or in the alternative recall the witnesses of the management for further examination. Along with that application an Affidavit stated to be by M.M. Kapoor was annexed.

Annexure VIII is another application by the management regarding the deposition of A.K. Bhusari, MW, 7 wherein it was stated that certain statements of Shri Bhusari were not properly recorded. Along with that an affidavit of Bhusari was enclosed.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.