Padma Khastgir, J. - (1.) This application has been taken out under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Good Year India Ltd. under the following circumstances.
(2.) The petitioner company prior to 1972 had its head office situate at 225C Acharyya Jagadish Ch. Bose Road, Calcutta and the district Sales Office at No. 60, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta. In the Year 1972, the Head Office of the petitioner company was shifted to New Delhi and subsequently the registered office was shifted from Calcutta to Ballabgarh. Consequently the petitioner only has a small establishment at Calcutta at No. 60, Chowringhee Road. The respondent No. 2 A.N. Bhattacharyya was an employee of the petitioner Company working in the capacity of a Billing Clerk at the office at 60, Chowinghee Road, Calcutta. He was dismissed by the petitioner company on 21st of November, 1967 on the basis of the finding at a domestic enquiry in which he was found guilty of number of charges. Those charges were that the 2nd respondent along with another employee named B. N. Dutt instigated the warehouse subordinate staff attached to the 60 Chowringhee Road not to unload the truck loaded with large sized tyres and thereby instigated the subordinate staff to disobey the instructions of the warehouse supervisor. In spite of protests from the superiors the respondent No. 2 continued to the instigate the subordinate staff. Then again on the next day i.e. the 2nd September, 1967 the 2nd respondent instigated the ex causal subordinate staff to cause wooden barricade to be placed across the main gate in order to obstruct the entry of the superior officers. The Good Year employees union intensified poster campaign by pasting poster and writing on the vails, windows and main gates of the office at 60, Chowringhee Road with defamatory, incriminatory and anti management slogans with caricatures and drawings. On protest the respondent No. 2 along with four other employees T. L. Dutt, S- K. Chatterji, B.N. Dutt and T. Ramchandran supported the same as part of lawful trade union activity. The 2nd respondent also used abusive languages. Hence a charge-sheet was served on the 9th of September, 1967 upon the 2nd respondent by the District Operating Manager in the presence of other persons. Although the 2nd respondent received the charge-sheet but he refused to sign the office copy in acknowledgement of the receipt of the said charge-sheet. He snatched away the office copy from the officer. Thereafter the typed copy of the charge-sheet dated 9th September, 1977 was sent by registered post with acknowledgement due to his address at 16A, Moore Avenue, Calcutta-40. The office of the Good Year India Ltd. employees union was also situated at 16, Moore Avenue. The 2nd respondent was the secretary of the said Union. After the issue of the said charge-sheet the 2nd respondent and his followers went on strike and resorted to such conduct which compelled the petitioner company to declare a lock out. The said charge she t was sent with a forwarding letter. Thereafter another letter was written on 13th of September, 1967 which was also sent by registered post with acknowledgement due whereby he was asked to answer or give explanation to the charges within 24 hours from the receipt of the letter. A further charge-sheet was also issued on 9th of September, 1967 for forcibly snatching away and tearing up of the office copy of the charge sheet issued to him and also for going on a unjustified, uncalled for and unwarranted, strike. The charge-sheet was sent to him by registered post at the same address which was also forwarded by a letter asking him to submit his explanation to the charge-sheet within 24 hours from the receipt of the letter All those registered communications were received back with the postal endorsement 'refused'. Thereafter a letter was sent on 5th October, 1967 by registered post with acknowledgement due placing on record the fact of refusal by him of all earlier registered communications enclosing copies of ail the said registered communications and directing him to submit his written explanation to the charge-sheet within 24 hours of the receipt of the letter. He was also sent a letter on 24th October, 1979 intimating that an enquiry would he held to enquire into the charges levelled against him. The charge-sheet dated 9th September, 1977 was served on the petitioner at the head office and a telegram was also sent 10 him informing him about the forthcoming enquiry. From the registered cover it would appear that every attempt was made by the peons to serve the covers on him on earlier occasions when various endorsements like 'left' 'not found' were made on the registered cover. Ultimately the said cover was served and bears the endorsement 'refused'. The telegram also could not be served as he refused to accept the same. Thereafter an inquiry was held by Avtar Krishna the Assistant Secretary of the Company on 3rd of November, 1967. The 2nd respondent did not appear at the enquiry and it was held ex parte. Evidence was given at the aforesaid communications and of the incidents in which the respondent participated which led to the issuance of the said charge-sheet. The Enquiring Officer found the respondent No. 2 guilty of the charges and after considering the finding of the Enquiring Officer the petitioner company came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 2 should be dismissed from services. Accordingly he was dismissed from service by the letter dated 21st of November, 1967 which was sent to him by registered post with acknowledgement due together with the Enquiring Officer's finding and report. At the time of the dismissal, proceedings were pending before the industrial tribunal in respect of a dispute referred to by another employee Manirul Haque. That reference was disputed by the company as invalid and the petitioner company applied under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash those proceedings. Hence an application was taken out under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the industrial tribunal for the for the approval of the action of the petitioner company in dismissing the 2nd respondent. The said reference made by Manirul Haque was quashed. The industrial tribunal held that the petitioner's application dated 9th June, 1979 under S. (33)(2)(b) was not maintainable.
(3.) Since then the head office of the Good Year Company has been shifted from Calcutta and the petitioner has a few workers or employees at Calcutta and the Good Year employees union has ceased to exist Hence nobody was interested either collectively or individually in the dismissal of the 2nd respondent. There was no apprehension or possibility of any industrial strike or interruption or production or stoppage of supplies or services to the public, arising out of the dismissal of the 2nd respondent.;