NEW VICTORIA MILLS CO LTD Vs. RAJA RAM GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, the New Victoria Mills Company Limited, Kanpur employed the first respondent, Raja Ram Gupta, as a cotton godown clerk. On August 12, 1961 it framed charges against Gupta on account of misconduct under Standing Order 23(1) in respect of neglect ing his work and causing loss to the company. An enquiry upon those charges was made by an officer of the petitioner and upon the report submitted by the officer Gupta was dismissed on Septem ber 28, 1961.

(2.) ON October, 4, 1961. Gupta present ed an application before the Labour Court I, Kanpur under Section 6F of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. Inter alia, it was pointed out that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Section 6E of the Act. The Labour Court found that an industrial dispute in respect of the sus pension and termination of services of Ram Sumer, an operative in the Weaving Department of the concern, was pending adjudication, that the petitioner was bound to comply with Section 6E (ii) (b) of the Act and before dismissing Gupta apply to the Labour Court for approval of the action of the petitioner. The Labour Court found that inasmuch as Gupta was a member of the Suti Mill Mazdoor Sabha, a trade union of workmen and the Suti Mill Mazdoor Sabha had spon sored the industrial dispute in respect of the suspension and termination of the services of Ram Sumer, Gupta was a workman concerned in that industrial dispute and the provisions of Section 6E(ii) (b) were attracted. Holding that it had jurisdiction to entertain the applica tion under Section 6F, it entered into the merits of the dispute raised by Gupta and on November 14, 1962 it made an award directing the petitioner to re instate Gupta in service with effect from the date on which the award became en forceable and to pay him 50 % of the back wages from September 28, 1961 to the date of reinstatement. The award was enforced by a notification dated Decem ber 4, 1962 of the State Government. Thereafter Gupta applied under Section 6H (I) of the Act for realisation of the dues which he claimed under the award. The proceedings were registered as R. D. Case No. 17 of 1963 and are pending. The petitioner prays for the quashing of the award dated November 14, 1962, the noti fication dated December 4, 1962 enforcing it and the proceedings in R. D. Case No. 17 of 1963.

(3.) THE first contention is that Gupta was not a workman concerned in the dis pute relating to Ram Sumer and that, therefore, the application under Section 6F of the Act moved by Gupta before the Labour Court was not maintainable. In my opinion, the contention is well found ed. Gupta was a cotton godown clerk while Ram Sumer was an operative In the Weaving Department. It has not been shown that having regard to the nature of the dispute relating to Ram Sumer, Gupta could be said to be interested in that dispute. No common feature which could serve as a connecting link between Gupta and the pending dispute relating to Ram Sumer has been found by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has confined itself to the circumstance that Gupta is a member of the Suti Mill Maz door Sabha which sponsored the dispute relating to Ram Sumer. That considera tion, in my opinion, is not sufficient to make Gupta a workman concerned in that pending dispute. I have been referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in New India Motors (P) Ltd. New Delhi v. K. T. Morris, AIR 1960 SC 875 where the Supreme Court was called upon to decide what was the scope of the expression "workman con cerned in such dispute" under Section 33(1) (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In that case, the Supreme Court ex pressed the opinion that all workmen on whose behalf the dispute had been raised as well as those who would be bound by the award which may be made in the pen ding dispute would be included within the expression "workmen concerned in such dispute." This was followed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Dig- Wadi Collery V. Eamji Singh 1964-2 Lab LJ 143 (SC) where that Court con sidered it necessary to ascertain the nature of the dispute pending in the re ference while deciding whether the work men in question could be said to be con cerned in the pending dispute. It was pointed out: