JUDGMENT - B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J. :—These two writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugn Part I Award dated 30-4-1985 and Part II Award dated 30-4-1986 made in Reference (IDA) Nos. 108 and 111 of 1978 (writ petition No. 6005 of 1986) and Part I Award dated 30-7-1984 and Part II Award dated 30-4-1986 made in Reference (IDA) Nos. 109 and 110 of 1978 (writ petition No. 2067 of 1987). Since the facts and circumstances giving rise to the present writ petition are common, and the contentions are identical, it would be convenient to dispose of both these writ petitions by a common judgment.

2. The petitioners in both the writ petitions were employed as workmen in the Industrial Establishment of the First Respondent in both writ petitions. Writ petition No. 6005 of 1986 pertains to two workmen, R.U. Gokarn and N.B. Dhamdhere, while Writ Petition No. 2067 of 1987

pertains to other two workmen, V.R. Thakurdesai and A.K. Maini.

3. The two Awards impugned by the Petitioners in the writ petition direct reinstalement of the petitioners with back wages at the rate of 60 per cent in the case of the three workmen other than Dhamdhere who has been granted back wages at the rate of 45 per cent. Though the impugned Awards are but instances of excercise of judical discretion in moulding the relief to be granted under section 11 A of the industrial Disputes; Act, persistence and ingenuity of counsel have raised a storm in the tea cup - literally and figuratively! But, first, the facts.

4. The first Respondent has an Industrial Establishment at Bhandup in Bombay where it manufactures Fasteners. The Industrial Establishment has a canteen attached to it wherein, in discharge of its statuory obligation under the Factories Act, the first Respondent makes available food and beverages to its workmen. The genesis of the storm in the tea cup was a complaint regarding the quality of tea supplied in the canteen. The workmen made a complaint that the tea

supplied had a foul smell. Instead of sorting out the matter with the appropriate authority, on 21st August, 1973, during the second shift, a large number of workmen, accompanied by the four Petitioner-workmen, marched upto the first floor of the factory building and gheraoed the Works Manager D. Brewerton and nine other senior Management Staff members in the Works Manager's Office for about two hours. It is alleged that the Morcha and the Gherao was instigated by the four Petitioner-workman and futher that during the period of Gherao the four petitioner-workmen has shouted slogans using abusive and vulgar language against the Officers of the first Respondent and threatened to strip them if they dared to come out of the room in which they were confined. When the police were summoned, the Petitioner-workmen took up the stand that if the police touched any of the gheraoing workmen, then none of the Gheraoed Officers would be spared. The police, with difficulty, managed to rescue the victims of the Gherao and bring the situations under control.

5. On 24-8-1973 each of the Petitioners was served with a charge-sheet detailing the allegations against him. Though there are minor variations in the charge-sheet served on each Petitioner, the crux of the allegations was that the each Petitioner-workman had incited and instigated the workmen of the second shift to resort to an illegal strike, led the Morcha of the workmen to the works Manager's Office and wrongfully and illegally confined the Works Manager and other Officers for about two hours. It was also alleged that the workmen had played an active role in the Gherao and issued threats. On these allegations each of the Petitioner-workmen was charged with misconducts under Certified Standing Orders 22(2),22(11), 22(12) and 22(18) which read as under:

"1. Standing Order No. 22(2)

Participation in an illegal strike, or a abetting inciting instigating or acting in furtherance thereof whether alone or in combination with others.

2. Standing Order

Click Here to Read the rest of this document