Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SATYANARAYANA RAJU, J.
G. Gurumurthy
Versus
K. Ramulu
Writ Petn. No. 669 of 1955
Decided On : 06-08-1957
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - S. 10 (1) (C) - REFERENCE OF DISPUTE - GOVERNMENT'S POWER TO MAKE REFERENCE - ORDER OF REFERENCE - VALIDITY - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - WHAT CONSTITUTES - DISMISSAL OF SINGLE WORKER - WHETHER INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - REINSTATEMENT OF DISMISSED WORKER - JUSTIFICATION - QUESTION OF FACT - INTERFERENCE BY COURT UNDER ART. 226.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a partnership firm, dismissed one of their drivers, Ramulu, for disobeying their order to pick up passengers arriving by night trains. The Salur Motor and General Workers Union, to which Ramulu belonged, took up the matter with the petitioners and an agreement was reached on 22-2-1953, whereby the petitioners agreed to pay wages to Ramulu and other dismissed workers till their cases were finally disposed of by an Industrial Tribunal. The Government of Madras, however, declined to make a reference of the dispute to the Tribunal on 13-8-1953. Subsequently, the Government of Andhra, which was formed on 1-10-1953, made a reference under S. 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on 29-6-1954. The Industrial Tribunal and the Labour Appellate Tribunal both held that the dismissal of Ramulu was unjustified and that he should be reinstated with back wages.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Government of Andhra had jurisdiction to make the reference under S. 10 (1) (c) of the Act, even though the Government of Madras had declined to make a reference earlier. The court also held that the dismissal of a single worker could constitute an industrial dispute if it was espoused by the Workers Union. The court further held that the question of whether the dismissal of Ramulu was justified or not was a question of fact and that the concurrent findings of the Industrial Tribunal and the Labour Appellate Tribunal on this issue could not be interfered with by the court under Art. 226.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government of Andhra had jurisdiction to make the reference under S. 10 (1) (c) of the Act, even though the Government of Madras had declined to make a reference earlier? 2. Whether the dismissal of a single worker could constitute an industrial dispute if it was espoused by the Workers Union? 3. Whether the question of whether the dismissal of Ramulu was justified or not was a question of fact and that the concurrent findings of the Industrial Tribunal and the Labour Appellate Tribunal on this issue could not be interfered with by the court under Art. 226?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The order of the Government of Madras dated 13-8-1953 was passed on the basis of the material then in their possession. Subsequently there was further correspondence between the President of the Workers Union and the Labour Officer and also between the Commissioner of Labour and the Government. The Union gave notice of their intention to start Satyagraha. The Government, after a consideration of the subsequent events, came to the conclusion that there was a dispute which must be referred for the decision of the Tribunal and they accordingly made a reference under S. 10 (1) of the Act. 2. The case of an individual workman, if espoused by the Workers Union, constitutes an industrial dispute. 3. The question as to whether the dismissal of the 1st respondent is justified or not, is essentially one of fact.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs.
2. On 29-6-1954, in G. O. Ms. No. 1140, the Government of Andhra, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, the following issue for decision:
"Whether the termination of the services of Sri K. Ramulu, Driver, with effect from 15-1-1953 is justified; if not, to what reliefs is he entitled?"
The Salur Motor and General Workers Union and the petitioners were mentioned as the parties to the dispute. Notices were duly issued on the parties and they filed written statements containing their respective contentions. In its award, dated 24-11-1954. the Industrial Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, held that the dismissal of Ramulu (1st respondent) was unjustified and that he should be reinstated with effect from the date of dismissal.
The Tribunal also held that the 1st respondent was entitled to back wages from the date of dismissal upto the date of reinstatement, excluding the five months wages which the management admittedly paid to him. Against the said award, the petitioners preferred an appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India at Madras : By their order dated 26-9-1955, the Labour Appellate Tribunal affirmed the finding of the Industrial Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. The above writ petition was filed in this court on 3-11-1955 for the reliefs mentioned above.
3. On behalf of the petitioners it is contended (1) that there is a valid order passed by the Government of Madras on the 13-8-1953 declining to refer the dispute for adjudicationz and that the said order is conclusive and binding on the successor Government and that the reference made by the Government of Andhra is illegal inasmuch as the procedure indicated in S. 12 (5) was not followed before the reference was made; (2) that the reference made by the Government of Andhra is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the dismissal of a single worker does not constitute an industrial dispute; and (3) that the award directing the reinstatement of the 1st respondent is bad on the merits.
4. In order to appreciate the above contentions, it is necessary to mention briefly the facts preceding the reference. The Parameswari Bus Service was a partnership consisting of the petitioners and others and it was owning several buses of which MDV 1030 is one. The firm was dissolved in or about the beginning of 1952 and the assets of the firm were divided in specie among the partners.
The buses MDV 1030 and ORK 346 fell to the share of the petitioners at the said division and they formed themselves into a new partnership. In or about September 1952, there was a general strike by several bus employees for bonus and wages in which the 1st respondent, who was employed as a driver of the bus MDV 1030, took a leading part. That strike terminated by 3-10-1952 after the management granted certain concessions to the employees.
On 6-10-1952 the petitioners directed the 1st respondent to do the additional duty of picking up passengers arriving by the night trains. On 11-12-1952, the 1st respondent was transferred to drive the bus from Salur to Parvatipur. On 29-12-1952, the 1st respondent was informed by the petitioners that he had disobeyed their earlier order and that if he should not comply with that order within a week, his services would be terminated.
The President of the Workers Union, Salur, addressed a letter on 8-1-1953 to the petitioners explaining the difficulties that the 1st respondent would be put to if he had to shift from Vizianagaram to Salur and requesting the management to reconsider the matter. On 11-1-1953, the petitioners sent a letter terminating the services of the 1st respondent with effect from 15-1
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
