J. K. COTTON SPINNING AND WEAVING COMPANY, LIMITED Vs. WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected appeals; one is against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing an appeal under Letters Patent from the order of a single Judge dismissing a writ petition. In this writ petition the appellant had challenged the correctness of the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissing an appeal preferred by the appellant against an award made by the industrial tribunal, Kanpur. The writ petition was dismissed by the single Judge on the ground that the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, had ceased to exist and that the record of the case was at Bombay and not within the State of Uttar Pradesh. This view was upheld by the Division Bench. The other appeal is directed against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and has been brought by special leave granted by this Court on 12 October, 1959. It may be mentioned that the latter appeal was preferred after a long delay of about three years, but that delay has already been condoned by this Court.

(2.) THE dispute which was refereed to the industrial tribunal by the Government of Uttar Pradesh was as follows : -

(3.) IT will appear that an industrial dispute was then pending between the management and the workers and therefore the permission of the regional conciliation officer to dismiss Mahabir Prasad was sought by the appellant. This permission was granted and Mahabir Prasad was dismissed from service. It will appear that after the acquittal of Mahabir Prasad and the refusal of the appellant to reinstate him, the workmen of the appellant represented by Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh approached the State Government for referring the dispute to the industrial tribunal. That is how the reference with which we are concerned in this case came to be made. The industrial tribunal curiously enough dealt with the matter as if it was hearing an appeal from the decision of the domestic tribunal and proceeded to record evidence of witnesses on behalf of the union and on behalf of the appellant. In the course of the award the tribunal observed