Mukul Gopal Mukherji, J. - (1.) The petitioner No. 2 in both the writ applications is the Damodar Valley Corporation Shramik Union. In each of the two cases, the petitioner 1 is an active member and office-bearer of the said Union as also an employee of Damodar Valleey Corporation. Their terms and conditions of employment under the Damodar Vally Corporation, hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the Corporation, are governed by the Damodar Valley Corporation Service Regulations framed under the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948.
(2.) On 1-10-1980 the General Manager of the Corporation lodged a First Information Report at Alipore Police Station alleging that some agitators indulged in pulling the clothes of the Chairman while the latter was entering the office at 9-45 a.m. The Chairman was given several blows on his body and his head. The Chairman however managed to enter his room. No person was specifically named in the said First Information Report. On the contrary it was given out that the names of such persons who had allegedly led obstruction and physical assault on the Chairman would be furnished later on. On 1-10-80 a letter was sent by the General Manager to the Officer-in-charge of Alipore Police Station purporting to furnish the names of seven persons who allegedly led and instigated the said obstruction and physical assault on the Chairman urging police to take appropriate action under the criminal law against the said wrong-doers. The name of the petitioner 1 in each case figured in the said list of seven. An injury report was prepared by the Chief Medical Officer of the Corporation purporting to record some minor injuries on the person of Sri P. C. Luther, the Chairman. This was done after the medical examination of the Chairman at 11.30 a.m. It is averred that none of the members of the petitioner No. 2 Union including the petitioner 1 in each case, had anything positive to contribute regarding the alleged ugly incident. They disowned their complicity about the same. It is their contention that the names of. the petitioner 1 in each case viz. Mrigankamouli Dutta and Himangshu Sekhar Roy Choudhury were included in the list of seven, illegally and mala fide with a view to maligning them since they are office-bearers of the petitioner No. 2 Union. The reason behind was victimisation of the office-bearers of the Union since the management was following anti-labour policy. The subsequent events also justified that there was a preplanned policy of victimisation against them. Police on being prima facie satisfied about there not being any truth behind the allegations, did not take any follow up action or investigate the matter further. The petitioner 1 in each case stood suspended by an order passed by the Deputy General Manager, in contemplation of disciplinary proceeding against him. In the order of suspension it was directed inter alia that the petitioner 1 in each case would not be allowed to leave the headquarters without prior permission of the said Deputy General Manager. A copy of the order of suspension is at Annexure 'A'.
(3.) The Respondent 2 Union by a letter D/- 4-10-82 wrote to the General Manager, protesting against the attempt to victimise its Trade Union Workers by placing them under suspension and demanding the immediate withdrawal of the suspension order. The Director of Personnel by order dated 31st October, 80 issued a charge-sheet against the petitioner 1 in both the cases, alleging that on 1-10-80 at about 9.45 a.m. the said petitioner along with other employees formed an unruly assembly at the corridor of the second floor of Bhavani Bhavan and disturbed the harmony of work and caused physical obstruction to the Chairman in breach of D.V.C. Service (Conduct) Regulations. The petitioners in both the cases were asked to show cause in writing as to why they should not be held guilty of the charges. A copy of the charge-sheet dated 31-10-80 along with the statement of allegations is at Annexure 'C' to the writ application. On 10-11-80 the petitioner No. 1 in both the cases wrote to the Director of Personnel asking for certain documents which should be required for preparing a reply. A copy of the said letter is at Annexure 'D" to the writ application. Since no reply was forthcoming, a reminder was sent on 14-11-80 urging upon the Director of Personnel to supply them with the copies of the required documents. It was pointed out inter alia in the said representation that according to the Service Regulations it was obligatory on the part of the authorities to provide the delinquent with the opportunity of inspection of the relevant records and for taking extracts therefrom. A copy of the said representation dated 14-11-80 is Annexure 'E' to the writ application. By letter dated 27-11-80 the Union drew the attention of the Hon'ble Minister for Energy, Government of India to the illegal orders of suspension of the trade union leaders. A copy of the said letter dated 27-11-80 is at Annexure 'F' to the writ application. Since no response was available from the respondents authorities, the petitioners in both the cases made further representation dated 12-2-81 that this long silence would mean that they were unable to furnish the required documents and charges framed against them were baseless and mala fide. The respondents authorities in this context were urged upon to withdraw the suspension orders. A copy of the representation dated 12-2-81 is at Annexure 'G' to the writ application. By letter dated 23-3-81 the General Secretary of the Centre of Indian Trade Unions wrote to the Director General, International Labour Organisation pointing out instances of violation of Convention on right to organise and for collective bargaining and freedom of association and protection of the right to organise the employees of the Damodar Valley Corporation in India. The order of suspension as passed on Himangshu Sekhar Roy Choudhury and Mrigankamouli Dutta was characterised as instance of victimisation in order to terrorise the workers. A copy of the said letter dated 23-3-81 is at Annexure 'H' to the writ application of Himangshu Sekhar Roy Choudhury. By letter dated 9-4-81 the International Labour Organisation asked for additional information from the General Secretary of the Centre of Indian Trade Unions. The complaint before the International Labour Organisation was registered as ILO Case No. 1035. It is submitted by the petitioners that the Committee of the ILO held inter alia that the Government could not support by giving its explanations to the order of suspension of the workmen including Himangshu Sekhar Roy Choudhury and Mrigankamouli Dutta with concrete evidence and it was claimed by the Government that the Union could have had recourse to the existing legal remedies for settlement, instead of lodging a complaint with the ILO. The ILO however drew attention of the Government to the principle that workers, especially trade union officials, should enjoy adequate protection against the acts of anti-union discrimination in their employment. The Government was requested to consider the possibility of revoking the suspension of the trade-unionists and trade-union leaders. Extracts of the ILO's recommendation on the complaint presented by Damodar Valley Corporation Shramik Union on 23rd Mar., 81 through the Centre of Indian Trade Union is at Annexure 'J' to the writ application of Himangshu Sekhar Roy Choudhury. By letter dated 1-9-81 the Administrative Officer of the Damodar Valley Corporation directed both Himangshu Sekhar Roy Choudhury and Mrigankamouli Dutta not to enter any of the offices of the D.V.C. unless specifically asked to do so by the competent authority in writing. By letter dated 7-9-81 the said petitioners denied the allegations as contained in the letter dated 1-9-81 pointing out inter alia that the allegations showed an attitude of vindictiveness on the part of the Administrative Officer. Both Himangshu Sekhar Roy Choudhury and Mrigankamouli Dutta were called upon by the said Administrative Officer to withdraw the said letter. By office order dated 4-1-82 issued by the Deputy General Manager, the subsistence allowance of Himangshu Sekhar Roy Choudhury and Mrigankamouli Dutta was increased to an amount equivalent to 50% of the amount admissible during the first 12 months with effect from 1-10-81. By purported order bearing No. PL/Misc/Con/80-1666 dated 5-3-82 the Director of Personnel forwarded to the petitioners Himangshu Sekhar Roy Choudhury and Mrigankamouli Dutta three documents including F.I.R. dated 1-10-80, further report to the police of the self-same date and the medical report to the police of the same date issued by the Chief Medical Officer, D.V.C. Both Himangshu Sekhar Roy Choudhury and Mrigankamouli Dutta were called upon to submit their further reply, if any, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said letter and were threatened that action as deemed necessary in terms of the D.V.C. Service Regulations would be taken in case no further reply was received from them within the stipulated period. A copy of the said letter dated 5-3-82 along with the copies of the documents purported to be forwarded therewith and referred to in this context were also annexed to the writ application. Both Himangshu Sekhar Roy Choudhury and Mrigankamouli Dutta did not obtain extension of time to send their respective replies. On 8-3-82 the petitioner 2 Union submitted inter alia to the Chairman on various points including suspension of employees without enquiry and demanded judicious consideration and an early remedy. By letters dated 15-3-82 Himangshu Sekhar Roy Choudhury and Mrigankamouli Dutt wrote to the Director of Personnel pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 31-10-80 and the letters as aforesaid dated 5-3-82 forwarding the copies of the said documents. It was given out to the said respondents that more than a year and half had elapsed just to furnish the said petitioners copies of certain documents only, which if genuine, should have been in the custody of the authorities. That itself went a long way to establish that there was no basis or justification whatsoever for issuing the said purported charge-sheet and no action could be taken thereon. It was further contended by them that the Statement of Allegations as contained in the charge-sheet was not based on the F.I.R. and vaguest possible allegations were made and it revealed also that the allegations as contained in the purported charge-sheet and the purported statements were mere products of afterthought and no credence could be placed on them. It was further contended by the petitioners Himangshu Sekhar Roy Choudhury and Mrigankamouli Dutta that their names were included in the "further report" submitted to the police with an ulterior motive so as to implicate them with overt acts and the allegations were specifically denied by them individually. The authorities were further charged for having issued a pretended charge-sheet in respect of both Himangshu Sekhar Roy Choudhury and Mrigankamouli Dutta and on the basis of continuous order of illegal suspension for more than a year and half, the respondents only wanted to curb and stifle the activities of the petitioner 2 Union. Both Himangshu Sekhar Roy Choudhury and Mrigankamouli Dutta demanded withdrawal of the pretended charge-sheet and illegal order of suspension and urged upon the authorities to allow them to join their duties along with all back wages as also an opportunity of a personal hearing. By order dated 26-4-82 the Director of Personnel directed an enquiry against Himangshu Sekhar Roy Choudhury and Mrigankamouli Dutta under Regulation 98 of the D.V.C. Service Regulations into the charges framed against them. Sri A. K. Dutta Special Officer, D.V.C.. was appointed Enquiry Officer. Sri P. L. Chatterji was nominated to present the case in support of the charges before the Enquiring Officer with the stipulation that both Himangshu Sekhar Roy Choudhury and Mrigankamouli Dutta should not be entitled to enjoy a legal practitioner. By letter dated 3-5-82 addressed to the Director of Personnel both Himangshu Sekhar Roy Choudhury and Mrigankamouli Dutta reiterated the statements and submissions made by them in course of their previous letter dated 15-3-82 and urged upon the respondents not to proceed against them on the basis of the pretended charge-sheets under Regulation 98, since according to them the pretended charge-sheets had been issued contrary to law and the said Regulations. It was further contended that the appointment of Sri P. L. Chatterji who was formerly a Sessions Judge and then holding the post of the Law Officer of D.V.C. as employer's nominee to present the case in support of the pretended charge before the Enquiring Officer further establishes the illegality and mala fide on the part of Corporation, more so, when both Himangshu Sekhar Roy Choudhury and Mrigankamouli Dutta were specifically denied the opportunity of defence by a legal practitioner. It was further contended by them that no enquiry could be held or proceeded against them either on the basis of the said pretended charge-sheet or the pretended order dated 26-4-82. Both of them demanded immediate cancellation of the pretended charge-sheet along with the said pretended orders and called upon the respondents not to act in furtherence thereof in any manner. A specific demand of justice was given on their behalf by a letter dated 3-5-82. On 7-6-82 the Director of Personnel informed both Himangshu Sekhar Roy Choudhury and Mrigankamouli Dutta with reference to their letters dated 3-5-82 that there was no substance in the contention of the petitioners and that they were required to participate and defend their respective cases before the Enquiring Officer. By letter dated 11-6-82 both of them viz. Himangshu Sekhar Roy Choudhury and Mrigankamouli Dutta once again pointed out that steps taken by the Director of Personnel were not in conformance to the Regulation 98 of the D.V.C. Service Rules. The respondents had failed to give any proper reason in the context of representation made by the petitioners as to why they should be denied of the opportunity of having a proper defence by a lawyer. The petitioners demanded reconsideration of the entire decision and also their reinstatement in service unconditionally, without resort to any such illegal and vexatious proceeding. By another order bearing No. PL/Misc/Con/80 dated 15-6-82 issued by the Director of Personnel, the nomination of Sri P. L. Chatterji as the presenting officer was withdrawn and Sri S. L. Chakraborty, Joint Director of Personnel (LR) was nominated in place of Sri P. L. Chatterji as the presenting officer. It was reiterated over again that neither Himangshu Sekhar Roy Choudhury nor Mrigankamouli Dutta would be allowed to be represented by a legal practitioner. By letters dated 28-6-82 addressed to the Director of Personnel both Himangshu Sekhar Roy Choudhury and Mrigankamouli Dutta reiterated their earlier statements and contentions and submitted that Sri S. L. Chakraborty was a Law Graduate having served as Law Officer and Labour Welfare Officer in several organisations and that his position as Joint Director of Personnel (LR) taken in the background of his legal qualifications and experience, placed him in the same position of an undue advantage as that of Sri P. L. Chatterji who had his legal qualifications and experience in the judicial service. It was submitted that the change of personnel sought to be effected to encounter the objection of the petitioners was merely a cloak and the actual intention of the Corporation was to deprive the employees of their legal rights to have legal assistance which the Corporation would enjoy as an employer by having its right to have legal assistance of its choice through its expert officers in the field. It was contended further that the action on the part of the respondents was mala fide besides being violative of the relevant regulations and was dehors the principle of natural justice. Both Himangshu Sekhar Roy Choudhury and Mrigankamouli Dutta made specific demands of justice and requested for an opportunity of personal hearing. A copy of the said letter dated 28-6-82 is annexed to the writ application. Nothing having been heard in this context from the respondents and there having been a positive attitude on the part of the respondents to hold an enquiry in the manner alleged, the petitioners impugned the disciplinary proceedings as also the charge-sheet as well as the suspension orders, impugning also the various orders by way of refusal of legal assistance to the petitioners, in the present writ application praying inter alia that a writ in the nature of Mandamus for recalling, rescinding and cancelling as well as revoking the impugned orders should issue and to forbear from giving any effect or further effect to them. It is the specific prayer of the petitioners that both Himangshu Sekhar Roy Choudhury and Mrigankamouli Dutta should be reinstated to their formal position by revoking the orders of suspension and they should be given their salaries and allowances and other benefits, irrespective of the impugned orders of suspension, and a writ in the nature of certiorari should also issue calling upon the respondents to certify and transmit the records of the case containing the impugned orders and all proceedings relating thereto, so that conscionable justice may be rendered by quashing and/or setting aside the same. An order of injunction was also prayed for restraining the respondents from giving any effect or further effect to the impugned orders or proceedings and/or acting or further acting and/or proceeding and/or continuing to act or proceeding in any manner to the prejudice to the petitioners.;