Prem Chand Jain, J. - (1.) RAM Kumar and two others have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order of Respondent No. 1 published in the Haryana Government Gazette (Extraordinary), dated 14th April, 1971 (copy Annexure 'D' to the petition).
(2.) THE facts of this case may be stated thus: The Petitioners are the employees of Messrs Hissar Textile Mills, Hissar (hereinafter referred to as the Textile Mills). Petitioner No. 1 is the President of the Hissar Textile Mazdoor Sabha. while Petitioner No. 3 is a member of the Hissar Textile Mills Workers Union. The Textile Mills were required by the Government of Haryana to constitute works Committee in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947( hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the rules made thereunder. After giving details as to how the election to the Works Committee took place, it is stated in the petition that Petitioners 1 to 3 along with Sewa Ram, Kanwar Sain, Bagru Mal and Birbal Sharma were duly elected as members of the Works Committee as representatives of the employees. It is further stated that the Manager of the Textile Mills, Respondent No. 3 nominated seven members of the Works Committee in accordance with Rule 39 of the Industrial Disputes (Punjab) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). A works Committee was accordingly constituted comprising 14 members and from amongst its members, Petitioner No. 3 was elected the Vice -Chairman of the Works Committee. The Works Committee so constituted, continued to function in accordance with Rules quite properly till 14th April, 1971, when to great surprise of the Petitioners, the impugned order was issued and published in the Haryana Government Gazette (Extraordinary) wherein it was stated that the Works Committee was dissolved by virtue of the powers conferred by Rule 57 of the Rules (copy Annexure 'D' to the petition). It is this notification the legality of which has been challenged by way of this petition on various grounds. Written statement by way of an affidavit has been filed by Vimal Krishan Khanna, Manager, Hissar Textile Mills, Respondent No. 3.
(3.) IT was contended by Dr. Anand, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, that the impugned order by which the Works Committee of the Textile Mills was dissolved, was illegal and without jurisdiction as it infringed the principles of natural justice. According to the learned Counsel, the impugned order could not legally be sustained as it was passed without hearing the Petitioners and had been based on an enquiry with which the Petitioners were never associated. It may be stated that the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. M.L. Sarpal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3, conceded that the impugned order could not legally be sustained; however, as the question posed before me involved an important law point, I decided to judge its correctness independently.;