MANAGEMENT OF SRI RURDUTTROY JUTE MILLS PRIVATE LTD Vs. WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the Management of a Private Limited Company and it is directed against an award dated the 30th May, 1966, given by respondent No. 2, the Commissioner of Labour, Bihar, acting as an Arbitrator under Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act (Act XIV of 1947). A copy of the award has been made Annexure A to this application and the petitioner's prayer is that the award may be quashed by a writ of Certiorari or by any other approximate writ, order or direction.

(2.) The facts mentioned in the application under consideration are as follows: It is said that in 1965, the Government of Bihar published as arbitration agreement between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 (The Workmen represented by the Katihar Mazdoor Sangh, Katihar) in respect of the dismissal of six of the employees of the petitioner named Wali Mohammad, Nand Kishore, Ram Nichatar, Bhola, Ramjatan and Rajeshwar. In this case we are no longer concerned with the dismissal of Rajeshwar as the Arbitrator refused to interfere with his dismissal. It is stated that, amongst various contentions, the petitioner had urged before the Arbitrator that the dispute in which the Arbitrator had been appointed for adjudication was in the nature of an individual dispute and was not an industrial dispute and, therefore, the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to proceed under the Industrial Dusputes Act. The other contention raised before the Arbitrator was that there had been an agreement between the Union and the Management that the question of interpretation and implemention of fallback wages in accordance with the recommendations of the Wage Board should be decided by the Tripartite Standing Committee (Jute) with the Labour Commissioner as its ex-officio Chairman, and while the said matter was pending for decision by the Committee, some of the workmen of the Mill had started a propaganda that the workers should not work more, as they would get the guaranteed minimum wage, even if they work less. Ra.ieshwar Bhagat had started this propaganda and a charge-sheet had been issued against him. Thereafter, he along with the other five persons named above started shouting slogans from the 8th March, 1965 inside and outside the mill premises at Gate No. 1 four times a day and they had used abusive and filthy words towards the officers of the mill. They also intimidated the incoming and the outgoing workers and the situation had continued till the 3rd April. 1965. It was contended that in those circumstances the Management had held an enquiry into the allegations against these workers resulting in their dismissal from service.

(3.) The Arbitrator has come to the conclusion, upon the first contention of the petitioner, mentioned above, that, as the Management had signed the Arbitration agreement for referring the dispute to Arbitration, it could no longer raise the objection that there was no industrial dispute at all. Upon the facts of the case, the relevant findings given by the Arbitrator have been quoted in paragraph 13 of the application, which are as follows: