TIN PLATE COMPANY OF INDIA PT LTD Vs. ABDUL SATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two applications by the Tin Plate Company of India (Private) Ltd. under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the question raised is whether the Labour Court at Dhanbad had jurisdiction to entertain applications under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by two of their workmen, namely, Abdul Sattar, opposite party in Miscellanous Judicial Case No. 555 of 1958, and Ramasis Singh, opposite party in Miscellanous Judicial case No. 556 of 1958, and determine the legality or otherwise of their discharge from service. The facts leading to these applications may be shortly stated as follows:--

(2.) There was a stay-in-strike in some sections of the Works of the petitioner Company from 9th August, 1957, and on 12th August, 1957, several employees, including opposite parties Abdul Sattar and Ramasis Singh, were charge sheeted for undermining discipline and inciting workers to stop work, and after hearing, the opposite parties were discharged from service for misconduct OR 14th August, 1957. The discharge order was communicated to them by registered post on the same day, and further a copy of the said order was also sent on the same day to the Time Office to stop them from entering the Works. After some days the registered letters were returned unserved with an endorsement that the addresses were absent. The following two days, viz., 15th and 16th August were holidays, and when the opposite parties went to join their respective shift duties on 17th August, 1957, they were stopped by the Time Office from entering into the premises in view of the order of discharge. It appears that one day after the order of discharge, viz., on 15th August, 1957, the State Government, by its order No. III/DI/6011/571-14466, referred an industrial dispute to the State Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, at Patna, being reference No. 20/57. Shortly after, being stopped by the Time Office from joining their respective duties, the opposite parties made a complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as the Act), before the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, for contravention of the provisions of Section 33(1) of the Act, and they were registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 17/1957 M. C. 717/58 and Misc. Case No. 72/1957 M. C. /18/58 The petitioner Company was directed to show cause. In showing cause they pleaded that as the discharge of the opposite parties was decided upon and effectuated before the date of reference of the dispute to the Indus trial Tribunal, there was no contravention of Section 83 of the Act, and as such the petitions of complaint of the opposite parties were not maintainable and the Labour Court bad no jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate upon the said complaints. The petitioner Company invited the Labour Court to decide their preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petitions and the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain them. Both the cases were heard analogously by the Labour Court, and by its order dated 1st July, 1958, it decided that me complaints under Section 33A of the Act were maintainable and it had jurisdiction to hear them on merits. It is the validity of this order that is challenged by the petitioner Company in these two cases.

(3.) The facts are not disputed. The opposite parties in both the cases were discharged from service for misconduct on 14th August, 1957. The State Government referred an industrial dispute to the State Industrial Tribunal on 15th August, 1957. The discharge order was sent by registered post, but was not delivered, because the opposite parties were found absent. On 17th August, 1957, they went to join their duties, but were stopped by the Time Office from entering the Works, in pursuance of the discharge order. The question is whether, in the circumstances, Sections 33 and 33A of the Act were attracted. Sub-section (1) of Section 33, which is relevant for the present enquiry, provides as follows:--