ROHTAS INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. BRIJ NANDAN PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from a decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta, dated 25-9-1953. The relevant facts lie within a narrow compass. On 4-5-1953 the appellant, the Rohtas Industries Limited, Dalmianagar, made an application to the said Labour Appellate tribunal under S.22, Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 (48 of 1950), hereinafter referred to as the Act, for permission to discharge ninety-six temporary employees in the following circumstances. The appellant company have a number of factories at Dalmianagar including a cement factory, power house, pulp mill, paper factory, chemical factory, factory for manufacture of certain acids and an asbestos cement factory. The company had a number of temporary employees who were engaged temporarily in connection with certain works for the extension and enlargement of those factories. The terms of employment of these employees were embodied in a temporary appointment form, which was signed by the employees as well as the management. The said terms stated, inter alia, that

(2.) The two applications which had been made to the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, the one under S.33, Industrial Disputes Act and the other under S.33-A of the said Act, remained pending with the Industrial Tribunal till 17-12-1952 on which date the application under S.33-A filed by forty nine of the sixty nine temporary employees, was dismissed. On 3-1-1953, the Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, intimated to the appellant company that the Tribunal was no longer competent to pass any orders on the application under S.33, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the adjudication proceedings on the main reference had already concluded. Two appeals were taken to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, one from the award made on the main adjudication and the other from the order made on the application under S.33-A, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On 20-5-1953, the appeal from the order under S.33-A was dismissed. As we are not concerned with that appeal in any way, nothing further need be said about it in this judgment.

(3.) The appeal from the main award was pending on 4-5-1953 on which date the appellant company made their application under S.22 of the Act to the Labour Appellate Tribunal for permission to discharge ninety-six of the temporary employees. Though there were one hundred and five temporary employees originally, with regard to whom an application had been made to the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, nine out of them voluntarily left the service of the company; therefore, the number of temporary employees regarding whom the application under S.22 of the Act was made was ninety six only.