- (1.) IN M. J. C. No. 590 of 1955. the petitioner is Bata Shoe Company, Ltd. , which has a factory at Digha. In M. J. C. No. 546 of 1955 the petitioners are 59 dismissed workmen who had been previously employed in the Digha factory. Both these applications are contested by the State of Bihar, who is the principal respondent. In M. J. C. No. 590 of 1955, there is another principal respondent, the Bata Mazdoor Union. The chairman of the industrial tribunal is also a respondent in both these applications.
(2.) IN February 1954, there was a dispute between Bata Shoe Company, Ltd. (which will be hereinafter referred to as the company) and its workmen. Conciliation proceedings were started, and on 18 February 1954 a settlement was duly reached and recorded. But on 23 February 1954, a number of workmen went on strike which was illegal as there was contravention of the provisions of Section 23 (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The State Government issued a press note pointing out that the strike was illegal and advised the workmen to give up strike and join work immediately. But the workmen failed to return to work in spite of warning. The company thereafter served the workmen with chargesheets and asked them to submit explanations. As the workmen failed to return to work or to give explanation, the company issued orders dismissing about 275 workmen including respondents 3 to 62. Later on, the Bata Mazdoor Union (hereinafter referred to as the union) made a representation to the company and as a result, the company reemployed 76 workmen out of those dismissed. On 16 August 1954 the union served a notice upon the company enumerating several demands. The main question raised was whether an increase in the volume of employment at the Digha factory was justified and whether the company should take back all the workers who were dismissed as a result of the strike of 23 February 1954. On 2 September 1954, the dispute was settled by negotiation and the settlement was recorded in a memorandum of the same date (vide annexure I to the company's application ). One of the terms of the settlement was that 31 workmen, namely, respondents 3 to 33 of M. J. C. No. 690 of 1955) would not be given employment. But these workmen did not abide by the terms of the settlement and raised a dispute regarding their employment. On 8 October 1954, the State Government, acting in exercise of the power conferred by Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, referred the dispute to the industrial tribunal. The order of the State Government was to the following effect:- No. III/di-1602/54l-15225.-Whereas an industrial dispute exists between the management of the Bata Shoe Company, Ltd. , Digha Ghat, Patna, and their workmen mentioned in appendix A regarding the matters specified in annexure A; Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 read with Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947), the Governor of Bihar is pleased to constitute the industrial tribunal of which Mr. Ali Hasan shall be the sole member and to refer the said dispute to the said tribunal for adjudication. ANNEXURE A Whether the dismissal of the workmen mentioned in appendix A was justified; if not, whether they are entitled to reinstatement or any other relief? By order of the Governor of Bihar, (Sd.) B. P. SINGH, Secretary to Government. Appendix A contains a list of 31 workmen including D. N. Ganguly, M. P. Gupta and others. The tribunal took cognizance of the reference on 13 October 1954 and directed the parties to submit respective memoranda. On 19 January 1955, the State Government made another reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act between the company and 29 other workmen, namely, respondents 34 to 62. This notification is annexure IV to the company's application and reads as follows: No. III/di-1601/55l-696. Whereas an industrial dispute exists between the management of the Bata Shoe Company, Ltd. Digha Ghat, Patna, and their workmen, mentioned in annexure B regarding the matters specified in annexure A; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 read with Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947), the Governor of Bihar is pleased to constitute an industrial tribunal of which Mr. Ali Hasan shall be the sole member and to refer the said dispute to the said tribunal for adjudication. ANNEXURE A Whether the dismissal of the workmen mentioned in annexure B was justified; and, if not, whether they are entitled to reinstatement or any other relief? By order of the Governor of Bihar, (Sd.) U. N. MAZUMDAR, Under-Secretary to Government. Annexure B to this notification includes the name of 29 workmen including D. N. Ganguly, A. Karim and others. The industrial tribunal took cognizance of this reference on 17 January 1955 and directed the parties to submit their written statement on 24 January 1955 the tribunal made an order amalgamating both the references, namely, reference No. 10 of 1954 and reference No. 1 of 1955. On 30 May 1955, the union filed an application before the tribunal for being made a party to both the references. The application was moved by Sri Fateh Narain Singh, but the tribunal dismissed the application by its order No. 39, dated 3 June 1955. The order of the tribunal is in the following terms:- Sri Fateh Narain Singh was heard at length on the petitions filed by the workmen for being impleaded as parties to the references Nos. 10 of 1954 and 1 of 1955. His contention in brief seemed to be that the management being in collusion with the opposite parties in those references was only malting a show of contest and was not really placing necessary materials before the tribunal. According to him many of these workmen acted as agents of the management in organizing the strike and took active parts in the acts of violence committed during the trouble at the cost of the other peaceful workers in the factory. It was their contention that if these elements were again taken back in the factory it would jeopardise the harmony and peace in the industry. On those grounds the workmen in general through their general secretary of the union wanted to be impleaded as parties in order to place real and full facts before the tribunal. It was also contended that the award given in these references would seriously affect the finding to be given on issue 1 in reference No. 9 of 1955 and so also it was necessary that the workmen of the concern should be impleaded as 'parties to the reference in question as well. The last contention has already been disposed of in order No. 36 dated 31 May 1955 and need not be considered again. The other grounds mentioned in the petition need consideration. On behalf of the dismissed workmen this prayer was vehemently resisted by Mr. Roy and Mr. Ghosh and it was contended on their behalf that the facts contained in the petition in question were far-fetched and the idea that the harmony and peace in the industry was involved in the result of this adjudication was more imaginary than real. Reference was made to Lakshmi Talkies, Madras v. Chitti Babu 1954-I. L. L. J. 323, in which it was laid down that an individual dispute unless it was made at the instance of the union of the workmen could not be termed as adispute in which other workmen were concerned. Exactly that was the case here and in the eye of law the result of the adjudication proceedings in these references in no way affected the other workmen of the factory and, if at all any such assertion was made on their behalf, it was far-fetched and not real. It is difficult on the supposition of a remote possibility of the industrial peace being disturbed in the concern to implead the entire body of workmen of the concern as parties to these references specially when the appropriate Government did not consider it necessary to implead them as such. Even Mr. Bose, appearing for the management who had no legal objection to their being made parties, conceded that they were not necessary parties but only proper parties. I am, therefore, unable to grant this petition of the workmen and thereby complicate the issue and the same has to be rejected.
(3.) ON 7 June 1955, Sri Fateh Narain Singh made an application for review of the order of the tribunal. This application was rejected on the same date. On 25 June 1955, Sri Fateh Narain Singh wrote a letter to the Labour Commissioner requesting that the union should be impleaded as a party to references Nos. 10 of 1954 and 1 of 1955. Meanwhile the industrial tribunal proceeded to hear both the references and between 7 June 1955 and 14 September 1955 the tribunal held eighteen sittings and heard evidence given on behalf of the company. On 14 July 1955, Sri Fateh Narain Singh sent a telegram to the State Government repeating the request that the union should be made a party to the two references pending before the industrial tribunal. On 17 September 1955, the State Government issued a notification purporting to act under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, By this notification the State Government superseded the two previous notifications dated 8 October 1954 and 15 January 1955, and made a fresh reference of the dispute between the company and the workmen to the industrial tribunal. The notification is to the following effect:- No. III/di-1601/55 L-13028-Whereas the Government of Bihar is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended between the management of the Bata Shoe Company, Ltd. Digha, Pana, the workmen mentioned in annexure B and the workmen represented by the Bata Mazdoor Union, Digha, Patna, with regard to the matters specified in annexure A; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 read with Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947), and in supersession of notification No. III/dm602/54l-1525, dated 8 October 1954, and No. III/di-1601/55l-717, dated 15 January 1955, the Governor of Bihar is pleased to constitute an industrial tribunal of which Mr. Ali Hassan, chairman, industrial tribunal, Bihar, shall be the sole member and to refer the said dispute to the said tribunal for adjudication. ANNEXURE A Whether the dismissal of the workmen mentioned in annexure B was justified or unjustified, and to what relief, if any, these workmen are entitled? Annexure B to the notification contains names of sixty workmen who had been mentioned in the annexures to the previous two notifications, dated 8 October 1954 and 15 January 1955. It is important to notice that the dispute referred to the industrial tribunal by the notification dated 17 September 1955 is practically the same as referred to in the previous two notifications, the only difference being that the Bata Mazdoor Union, Digha, is mentioned as one of the parties in the dispute in the notification dated 17 September 1955. ;