Das Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS appeal by four sister companies Is against an award of the seventh Industrial tribunal, West Bengal, directing reinstatement of twelve workmen and payment of subsistence allowance at 50 per cent of their basic wages from 4 May 1957 till the date of reinstatement, less three months.
(2.) IT appears that there were some disputes in the factories of the companies in April 1957. Police cases were started against these twelve and Borne other workmen. IT was when these oases were pending that four separate agreements were arrived at between the union representing the workmen and these four companies before a conciliation officer. This was on 4/5/1957. The agreement provided inter alia that (1) the workers against whom police cases were pending would remain suspended till the final disposal of the cases; (2) from 4/5/1957 till such dismissal the workers shall be paid 50 per cent of wages as subsistence allowance ; and (3) the workmen against whom the cases finally resulted in conviction shall be dismissed from the service of the company and those who would be discharged or acquitted or dropped from the cases would be reinstated in their jobs with fall benefits, less the money received by them as subsistence allowance. The oases were disposed of on different datessome on 29/7/1958, some on 31/7/1959 and one on 27/1/1960. All the oases ended in acquittal. On 21/4/1960 the president of the union wrote several letters to the employers asking for reinstatement of the workers in terms of the agreements of 4/5/1957. Nothing was mentioned in any of these about the letters written by the employers to the union on 9 April 1958 intimating their intention to terminate the settlement of 4/5/1957. As the management declined to comply with the request of the union in these letters of 21/4/1960 a dispute was raised. Ultimately, the dispute was referred to the industrial tribunal, by an order of the Government of West Bengal dated 4/12/1961. The reference mentioned the names of 29 workmen including the twelve with whom we are concerned in this appeal and stated the dispute thus : "Whether the following workmen are entitled to subsistence allowance and/or reinstatement in their services in view of the agreements dated 4/5/1957 ? If not, to what relief, if any, they are entitled ?" The claim of the workmen was resisted by the employers on two main grounds. The first was that the agreements of 4/5/1957 stood terminated with effect from 9/6/1958. Secondly, it was urged that even assuming that the workers were entitled to any benefit from these agreements no relief should be given to them as they had not reported for duty immediately on the disposal of the criminal oases, as they should have done. The tribunal held that with the termination of the settlement with effect from 9/6/1958 by a notice under S. 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the rights and liabilities arising out of the settlement could not be enforced according to the strict letters of the settlement but even so, the workmen whose services had not been terminated by the company would be entitled to reinstatement. It appears to have agreed with the company's contention that if these workmen did not offer to rejoin their duty soon after the disposal of the criminal oases, the company should not be asked to reinstate them. It therefore rightly addressed itself to the question whether the workmen did come forward to claim reinstatement after the disposal of the criminal cases and dealt with the matter thus : "The workers who have given evidence in this case have stated that they came forward for reinstatement but they were straightaway refused reinstatement by the general manager of these companies, Sri Singal. It appears from the evidence that the last of the criminal cases was disposed of on 27/1/1960 [vide Ex. 2 (a)] and the union wrote letters to the companies (Exs. 4 series) on 21/4/1960 asking for reinstatement of workers but there was no response to these letters. In the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the union did not act promptly in asking for reinstatement of the concerned workers and the workers voluntarily absented themselves from work and failed to report for work within a reasonable time after the disposal of the criminal cases. So, the plea that the workers themselves did not come up for reinstatement is absolutely unacceptable."
(3.) THE main contention urged in support of the appeal Is that the evidence on the record clearly shows that the workmen did not ask for reinstatement within a reasonable time after the disposal of the criminal cases against them. This Is a question of fact and if there had been a clear finding of the tribunal on this question we would not be prepared to consider the matter for ourselves. It appears that though at first sight the tribunal seems to be of opinion that the workmen did report themselves for work within a reasonable time after the disposal of the criminal case against them the finding is neither clear nor unambiguous. It has to be remembered in this connexion that while oases against two out of the twelve workmen were disposed of in July 1958, oases against nine were disposed of in July 1959 and the case against one only was disposed of in January 1960. Each of these workmen who has given evidence has Indeed claimed to have reported for duty within a few days from the disposal of the cases against him. While some Bay that they were not allowed to enter the factory premises at all, others say that they were able to meet the manager but the manager declined to allow them to work. It is not clear whether this evidence that each of these workmen reported for duty claiming reinstatement within a few days after the disposal of the case against him has been believed by the tribunal. But that is the real point to be decided. In the absence of any clear or definite finding on the point it has been necessary for us to examine the evidence for ourselves to decide this question. Though, as we have Just stated, these workmen claimed to have reported for duty immediately after the disposal of the criminal oases in which the particular workman was involved there is nothing in writing in support of this story. What documentary evidence we have got points definitely to a contrary conclusion. If it were true that the two workmen who were acquitted In July 1958 reported for duty claiming reinstatement within a short time after that and were refused reinstatement, as it is now stated, it is reasonable to think that they would report the matter to the union and the union would take it up with the management. Similarly, also if the nine workmenout of the present twelvewho were acquitted in July 1959 had reported themselves for duty within a few days thereafter but were refused reinstatement, it was reasonable to expect that the matter would have been brought to the knowledge of the union and the union would have written about it to the management. No such letter appears to have been written. The president of the union has in his evidence stated : "... after the disposal of the criminal cases, the concerned workers reported for duty to the concerned companies but the companies refused to reinstate them in terms of the agreement. Then I as president of the union wrote letters to the companies requesting them to respect the agreement and grant reliefs accordingly." Exhibits 4 to 4C are claimed to be the office copies of those letters. All of those letters are dated 21/4/1960. On a reasonable reading of the president's evidence it becomes clear that it was only on 21 April 1960 that he wrote to the company asking for reinstatement of the workmen in terms of the agreement and that this action was taken by him soon after the workmen reported to him that they had been refused reinstatement. ;