- (1.) THESE are two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Kendriya Sarvodaya Sahkari Sangh Limited, Jaipur, hereinafter to be referred as the "sangh", by which the Sangh questions the validity of two awards given by the industrial Tribunal, Ra. jasthan, Jaipur, holding that the termination of the services of Sangh's employees; Shri Ram Swarup Mathur in the one case and Shri Jata shankar in the other, were illegal and unjustified and in consequence awarding compensation to both of them, though their reinstatement was not ordered The government made two identical references to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, at the instance of Saranjan Udyog karamchari Union, Jaipur As the two writ petitions raise some common questions of law, they can conveniently be disposed of together
(2.) WE may first advert to the facts in Shri Jata Shankar's case. The Sangh was a co-operative Society registered under the Rajas-than Co-operative Societies Act of 1953 and Shri Jata Shankar was employed as a Chief Accounts Officer in 1958 by the Sangh. The Sangh also had a post of Manager, but it appears that with effect from 9-9-61, the post of Chief Accounts Officer was merged with that of the manager and Shri Jata Shankar was appointed as an acting Manager He held this appointment till 23-12-61 when under orders of the Sangh he was relieved of this post by one Shri Ram Ballabh Sharma. On 29-12-61 the Sangh levelled certain allegations against Shri Jata Shankar and asked for his explanation Shri Jata shankar replied to the communication addressed to him on 30-12-61. On 24-1-62 the Manager of the Sangh served a charge-sheet on Shri Jata Shankar and gave him 3 days time for submitting his reply to the charge sheet. As Shri Jata Shankar failed to submit his reply within the lime allowed to him, a notice proposing the penalty of dismissal was given to him on 2-2-62. On this date Shri Jata Shankar appears to have sent his reply to the charge-sheet given to him by the Sangh. The matter was then placed before the Administrative Committee of the Sangh who considered it in its meeting dated 7 2-62 and passed a resolution, which was no 9. holding that Shri Jata Shankar was guilty of indiscipline and consequently it was not thought desirable to keep him in the services of the Sangh any longer. Pursuant to this resolution an office order was served on Shri Jata Shankar on 162-62 that his services shall stand terminated with immediate effect Shri Jata shanker's cause was then taken up by a union of workers styled as Saranjan udyog Karamchari Union and the Union moved the Stale Government to refer the industrial dispute about the termination of services of Shri Jata Shankar to the industrial Tribunal. The reference made by the Government was lo the following effect: "whether the termination of the services of Shri Jata Shankar (represented by the Saranjan Udyog Karamchari Union, Jaipur) by the kendriya Saryodaya Sahakari Sangh Limited, Jaipur, is unjustified and illegal? If so. to what relief Shri Jata Shankar is entitled?" In opposing the reference the Sangh raised a preliminary objection before the industrial Tribunal that as Shri Jata Shankar was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, he being an officer discharging managerial and administrative functions the reference of the industrial dispute was not competent. The Tribunal rejected this preliminary objection on the ground that as Shri Jata Shankar had been relieved of his duties of a Manage on 23-12-61 that is, prior to the disciplinary proceedings being taken against him, the nature of the duties subsequentlv performed by him had to be taken into consideration for seeing whether he was a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 The Tribunal then made a survey of the various duties that Shri Jata Shankar had been performing since 23-12-61 and came to the conclusion that he was only discharging the duties of a clerk and consequently Shri Jaia Shankar was held to be a workman within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act the Tribunal then went into the question raised on behalf of Shri Jata Shankar thai the order of termination of his services was bad, because the principles of natural justice had not been followed by the Sangh. It was contended before the Tribunal on behalf of Shri Jata Shankar that no enquiry whatsoever was held by the management before holding him guilty The Tribunal observed as follows: "a perusal of the dismissal order itself shows that the charges levelled against Shri Jata Shankar were assumed to be true merely because in the opinion of the Prasshan Samiti the reply submitted by Shri Jata shankar was utterly without any substance. Though a copy of the charge-sheet was furnished to Shri Jata Shankar no enquiry whatsoever was held by the Management nor were any findings arrived at as a result of an enquiry. Charges Nos. 4, 7 and 8 may be considered to be of some importance but they are very vague and Ibis too much to expect a clear reply to them. Obviously principles of natural justice have been violated in this case by the Management inasmuch as no enquiry was held and shri Jata Shankar was not apprised of the material appearing in evidence against him. Moreover, no clear findings were arrived at on the specific charges levelled against him. The order of his dismissal is clearly arbitrary and there appears little justification or legality in it. " Though the Tribunal held that the order of termination of Shri Jata Shankar's services was bad, it did not order his reinstatement in view of the strained relationship between the parties and on account of the circumstances disclosed in the case. Therefore, in lieu of reinstatement the Tribunal awarded him; (i) one month's notice pay with usual allowances; (ii) fifteen days' wages for each completed year of servicee to be reckoned from the date Shri Jata Shankar joined the service of the Sangh upto the date of his removal; and (iii) wages for the period commencing from the date of dismissal upto date minus the sum of Rs. 1900/- earned by Shri Jata Shankar from the Gram Udyog Vikas Samiti Jaipur.
(3.) IN challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal Shri N. M. Kasliwal, learned advocate for the Sangh, has made a four-fold submission. In the first instance he argues that Shri Jata Shankar not being a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the reference made by the Government was illegal and the Tribunal had, therefore, no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Secondly, it was contended that the Saranjan Udyog Karamchari Union, Jaipur, could not take up the cause of Shri Jata Shankar as the workman of the Union did not belong to the same Sangh as Shri Jata Shankar. Thirdly, it was submitted that the principles of natural justice were not attracted to the proceedings before a domestic tribunal like the Sangh dealing with the case of its employees alternatively it was urged that enough opportunity having been given to Shri Jata shankar to clear his position no further enquiry was necessary Lastly, it was argued that the Industrial Disputes Act does not apply to co-operative societies under the Rajas-than Co-operative Societies Act. 1953, and if there was any dispute between the co-operative society and its employees it has to be resolved by arbitration under Section 61 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act;