SOUTH BIHAR SUGAR MILLS LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule was issued on the opposite parties, the State of Bihar, the Chairman, Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, Manna Lall and Ram Khelawan Lall. General Secretary, South Bihar Sugar Mills Workers' Union, Bihta, to show cause why a direction or order, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, shall not issue quashing the reference made by opposite party 1, under Notification No. III/D/1-8018/54L-862, dated 18/1/1955, and a writ in the nature of prohibition, under the same Article of the Constitution, shall not issue directing opposite party 2 to forbear from proceeding with, or taking any steps in, Reference No. 2 of 1955, pending before him.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that opposite party 3, Manna Lall, was working as Sales Clerk in the Sugar Sales Department of the petitioner, Messrs. South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd., Bihta. He was suspended with effect from 31/3/1952, on account of his having acted dishonestly and fraudulently in connection with the Mills' business. It is alleged that Manna Lall acted dishonestly in the discharge of his duties. For the purposes of this application, it is not necessary to go into the details of the allegations made by the petitioner against the said opposite party. Opposite party 3, who will hereafter be referred to as Manna Lall, was charge-sheeted for an offence under Section 408, Penal Code, but he was acquitted on 30-9-1953, as almost all the witnesses for the prosecution had been gained over. The management, however, being satisfied, upon materials in their possession, that Manna Lall was guilty of unauthorised, fraudulent and dishonest acts in connection with the petitioner's business, and that he was further guilty of neglect in the performance of his duties, served upon him a notice to show cause, detailing therein the several charges against him, as to why he should not be properly dealt with, and to submit his explanations, if any. On receipt of his explanation, which was found unsatisfactory, a further opportunity was given to him, by a letter dated 25-12-1953, to explain the charges against him. His reply to the charges was found vague, and, as, in the opinion of the management, the conduct of Mohan Lall amounted to a major misconduct, within the mischief of Clause L(c) of the Certified Standing Orders, after having taken into consideration the materials available, including his explanation, the manage-merit informed Manna Lall, by a letter dated 27-3-1954, that his services were being dispensed with with effect from 31-3-1952. Manna Lall, by his letter dated 6-3-1954, addressed to the management, demanded a sum of Rs. 3,559/6/3 as his dues from the Mill; but, according to the management, Manna Lall was entitled to a sum of Rs. 298/8/3 only. He was informed of this, and was asked to take away this amount. Manna Lall, thereupon, by his letter dated 2-4-1954, asked the management to send the money due to him, after deducting money order commission, to his home address. The dues, therefore, amounting to Rs. 298/8/3, after deducting the money order commission, were sent to Manna Lall, and were duly received by him on 21-4-1954. The management thought that that was the end of the matter, and nothing was heard from him or from anybody else in this connection until sometime in November, 1954, when, at the instance of Manna Lall, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour addressed a letter to the Works Manager of the management, asking certain information in regard to his dismissal, and requesting the Works Manager to see him with all the relevant papers. Accordingly, the Head Time Keeper of the management, on behalf of the Works Manager, met the peputy Commissioner on 9-11-1954, and showed him all the relevant papers; and at that time Manna Lall himself represented his case, and there was no one, either on behalf of the South Bihar Sugar Mills Workers Union, or on behalf of any other body of workmen, to present Manna LalPs case. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour discussed the matter further with the Works Manager, but during all these discussions as well no one on behalf of the South Bihar Sugar Mills Workers Union was present. The Works Manager felt unable to recommend any further payment to Manna Lall even as a compassionate measure. It is submitted on behalf of the management that all these discussions, referred to above, proceeded on the basis that the dismissal of Manna Lall was fully justified and legal, and the only question mooted was the desirability of recommending some payment as a compassionate step. With this background, the management felt surprised when they received a notice from opposite party 2, the Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal, informing them that the State of Bihar, by the aforesaid notification, dated 18-1-1955, had referred the question of the justifiability or otherwise of the dismissal of Manna Lall to him for adjudication, and directing the petitioner to file written, statement on or before 22-2-1955. It is stated on affidavit that, at no point of time, whether before or after the dismissal of Manna Lall, the South Bihar Sugar Mills Workers Union, or anyone on their behalf, or any other body of workmen, had taken up the cause of Manna Lall, the dismissed employee. No dispute at the instance of the Union had arisen, or was ever raised by them in regard to the said dismissal, nor was any demand ever made by the said Union, or by anyone representing the Union on behalf of Manna Lall, to the management, or to the Government. On these facts, it is alleged by the petitioner that there was no industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2 (k), Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), and, therefore, the State of Bihar, namely, opposite party 1, had no jurisdiction to make a reference under Section 10 (1) of the Act, and that the proceedings before the Tribunal in Reference No. 2 of 1955 were illegal and without jurisdiction.

(3.) These allegations of fact, mentioned above, have been taken from the application itself, and none of the opposite parties filed any counter-affidavit. I must assume, therefore, that the facts, as alleged by the petitioner, are true.