P.C. Pandit, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition by the Rawalpindi Victory Transport Company (Private) Limited, Ambala City (hereinafter referred to as the Company) for quashing the award of the Labour Court, Rohtak, Respondent No. 2.
(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations of the Petitioner, it is a Private Limited Company doing the business of carrying passengers on certain prescribed routes in Ambala district since 1952. Towards the end of the year 1960, the State of Punjab, Respondent No. 1, took over two return trips on the Ambala -Narain Garh route from the Petitioner -Company, under what bad come to be known as the Fifty -Fifty Scheme, which necessitated the discharge from service of its two drivers, Gian Chand and Karnail Singh, Respondents 3 and 4. Accordingly, on 13 -12 -1960 the Petitioner -Company served notices of discharge from service on Respondents 3 and 4, who were the junior most on that cadre. One month's pay in lieu of one month's notice was remitted to them separately by money order. In the notices sent to them, they were further advised to approach the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, for appointment as drivers in accordance with the assurance given by the Provincial Transport Controller, Punjab, in a meeting of the Implementation Committee of the Fifty -Fifty Scheme. On 25 -1 -1961 the District Motor Transport Workers Union, Ambala, served a demand notice on the Petitioner Company by means of a letter for reinstatement of both Respondents 3 and 4. This demand, according to the Company, did not enjoy the support of the majority of its workmen. This matter, ultimately, came up before the Conciliation Officer, who, after making necessary investigation, made a report to the Government. On 29 -6 -1961 a communication was addressed by the Secretary to the Government, Punjab, Labour Department, to the Vice -President of the District Motor Transport Workers Union, Ambala City, to the effect that the demand regarding the reinstatement of the two retrenched workmen had been rejected, because during conciliation proceedings it was revealed that the retrenchment was made by the Management due to reduction in work. In spite of this communication, due to certain extraneous considerations, on 4th November 1961 the Government referred the following dispute to Respondent No. 2 for adjudication: Whether the termination of the services of the following workmen is justified and in order ? If not, to what relief they are entitled ? 1. Shri Gian Chand, Driver. 2. Shri Karnail Singh, Driver. Before Respondent No. 2, a statement of claim was filled on behalf or Respondents 3 and 4 and a written statement by the Petitioner -Company. On objections being raised by the Company, the following two preliminary issues were framed by Respondent No. 2 on 21st December 1961: 1. Whether the dispute to which the present reference relates is an industrial dispute and has been espoused by a substantial section of the establishment ? 2. Whether the Government could not make the present reference and had it first refused to do so ? The case was then adjourned for the evidence of the parties on these issues to 10th January 1962, on which date some evidence was recorded and the case was adjourned to 20th February 1962. On this date the parties closed their evidence. The cafe was then fixed for arguments on 21st February 1962. On this date, according to the Petitioner, Respondent No. 2 orally announced that the preliminary issues were decided in favour of the Company. No date was, therefore, fixed for further proceedings in the case. Subsequently, however, the Petitioner received a written notice from Respondent No. 2 to the effect that the case would come up for hearing on 23rd March 1962 at 9:30 a.m. in the Canal Rest House, Model Town, Ambala, and they should comply with the previous order passed on 21st February 1962. As a matter of fact, no other order except the one announced orally, referred to above, was passed by Respondent No 2 on that date. Even the next date was not fixed in the presence of the representative of the Company, The managing Director of the Company, however, appeared in person before Respondent No. 2 on 23rd March 1962. Respondent No. 2 Wanted the counsel for the parties to address arguments on the preliminary issues but as neither of them had turned up, the Court framed the following issue No. (3) on merits also and adjourned the case to 12th April 1962: Whether the termination of the set vices of the following workmen is justified and in order ? If not, to what relief they are entitled ? 1. Shri Gian Chand, Driver. 2. Shri Karnail Singh, Driver. On this date, the Company presented an application, signed by the General Manager, to Respondent No. 2 through its Accountant, Benarsi Dass, to the effect that the preliminary issues should be decided in the first instance, because even if any of them was decided in their favour, the question of going into the merits of the case would not arise. Reliance for this submission was placed by the Company on the decision of this Court in Re: Workmen v. Management of S.P. Worsted Spinning Mills, Verka, 23 F.J.R. 204, wherein it was decided that when preliminary issues were pleaded, then it was desirable that the same should be decided before taking up the question of merits of the case. Respondent No. 2, however, illegally and without any justification and with a view to cause injury to the Petitioner Company, changed his mind, as given out on 21 -2 -1962, and proceeded to record ex -parte evidence of the other side on merits. On 14 -4 -1962, Respondent No. 2 gave the award, by which he decided that the dispute to which the present reference related was an industrial dispute and had been espoused by a substantial section of the establishment ; that the Government could make the present reference ; and that the termination of the -services of the two workmen was by way of retrenchment and could, under no circumstances, amount to transfer. As a result, Respondent No. 2 ordered the reinstatement of the two drivers on the same terms and conditions on which they were previously employed and the reinstatement was to be with continuity of service. They were also awarded full back wages from the date of discharge up to the time of their reinstatement. They were also allowed Rs. 16/ - each as costs. This led to the filing of the present writ petition on 23rd June, 1962. 3. In the return filed by Shri Jawala Dass, Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Rohtak, it is mentioned that it was incorrect that he made any verbal order on 20th February 1962 deciding the preliminary issues in favour of the Management. In fact, there was no occasion for making any such order on the 20th as on that date neither Shri Chanan Singh, the General Manager of the Company, nor Mr. Mittal, their authorised representative, who bad to argue this case, had appeared in Court. Instead, Shri Mangal Singh, Adda Incharge, appeared on behalf of the Company, who did not produce his letter of authority, which he said he had misplaced somewhere and he promised to produce the same on the following day. He was, accordingly, allowed to appear even in the absence of that letter of authority and both the parties closed their evidence on that day. The case was then adjourned to the following day for production of the letter of authority and the same was produced by Shri Mangal Singh. On 21st February 1962 also Shri Chanan Singh and Shri Mittal did not turn up and, therefore, the case was adjourned for arguments. As the Presiding Officer had already applied for 10/12 days' leave in connection with the operation of his son, which had to be performed towards the end of February at Calcutta and as the exact date for the same had not been fixed by 21st February 1962, he did not fix the next date of hearing and told the parties that the same would be communicated to them by the office later on. Accordingly, the next date of hearing was fixed for 23rd March 1962. On that day, Shri Chanan Singh appeared on behalf of the Management and requested that the Presiding Officer should wait for Mr. Mittal, their authorised representative, who had to argue the case and who was due to return from Nangal on that day. The Presiding Officer waited both for Mr. Mittal and Mr. Madhu Sudan, the authorised representative of the workmen, but they did not turn up till about 12 noon. In the meanwhile, the Presiding Officer handed over to Shri Chanan Singh a very recent decision of the Supreme Court in The workmen of Rohtak General Transport Company v. Rohtak General Transport Company,, (1962) 1 LLJ 634 and asked him to go through that judgment carefully as the same was applicable to the facts of the present case. He also told him that in view of this Supreme Court judgment, his counsel perhaps would not be able to urge anything in support of the preliminary objection, but Shri Chanan Singh requested that another opportunity should be allowed to them to address arguments on the same. At this, the Presiding Officer suggested to Shri Chanan Singh that there had already been se eral adjournments in the case and that as desired by them he had waited for his counsel also several hours At this, the parties agreed that the issues on merits should also be framed and the case adjourned for evidence and arguments. This course appeared to be quite reasonable to the Presiding Officer, who, accordingly, framed the issue on merits and adjourned the case to 12th April, 1962 for evidence of the parties. On 12th April, 1962. however, Shri Chanan Singh, the General Manager, and Mr. Mittal, their counsel, again failed to appear and instead Shri Benarsi Dass, Accountant of the Company, with limited authority to present an application, appeared on behalf of the Management and presented an application requesting that the preliminary issues should be decided first, but this request was not granted. No one appeared on behalf of the Management to address arguments on the preliminary issues, although on the previous hearing the Presiding Officer had pointedly invited Shri Chanan Singh's attention to the latest Supreme Court judgment, which was against them. It was, thus, incorrect that the Presiding Officer had either capriciously changed bis mind or had taken ex parte proceedings against the Management with a view to cause injury to them. Shri Benarsi Bass had only limited authority to present the application and the Management had no arrangements to defend the case or even to represent them on that hearing. Shri Benarsi Dass also informed the Presiding Officer that both Shri Mittal and Shri Chanan Singh had left Ambala on the same morning and, therefore, it was not possible for him to call any one of them to appear in Court. In these circumstances, according to the Presiding Officer, he had no alternative but to take ex parte proceedings and to record the evidence, as the case was fixed for that purpose on that day.
(3.) IN the written statement filed by the State, the allegations made by the Petitioner were denied. It was further stated that the reference was made after fully considering the circumstances existing at the time of the same. The reference was fully in accordance with law and well within the jurisdiction of Respondent No. 1.;