The termination of service of a workman by way of punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action does not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

S.B.Sinha, J.

1. This writ application is directed against an award dated 11th August, 1986 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court Ranchi (respondent No. 1) in Reference Case No. 2/82 whereby and where under an industrial dispute referred to the said authority for its adjudication was answered in favour of the respondent No. 2 and against petitioner.

2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass:-

Admittedly, the concerned workmen at all material times were employed by Usha Martin Black Limited which has a factory at Tatisilwai. On 9-3-1991, four concerned workmen received charge-sheets dated 5-34981, 6-3-1981 and 7-3-1981which are contained in Annexures 2, 2-A and 2-B to the writ application wherein it was inter alia alleged that they on 5th March, 1981 at about 4 p.m. along with some other workmen struck work and also incited and coerced other workmen of Machine Shop to strike work with the result that the workmen in Machine Shop stopped working from 3.00 p.m.

The concerned workmen gave a reply to the Management which haying not been found satisfactory, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against them. One Sri Madan Gopal, Advocate, was appointed as an enquiry officer. On 27-4-1991 and on subsequent dates, the Managements witnesses were examined, and cross-examined. A report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer and the Management, thereafter, passed orders dismissing the concerned workmen from services. According to the Management, the charge leveled as against the workmen were of very grave and serious nature and warranted extreme punishment.

3. On the other hand, the workmen denied the charges and alleged that they had all along been working to the entire satisfaction of the management and, in fact, they neither stopped work on that date nor incited others to do so. It was further contended that the venue of the enquiry was far away from the place of incident, but despite requests made by the concerned workmen to the Management to hold the enquiry in the factory premises, the same was not acceded to.

4. An industrial dispute was raised in relation to the aforementioned action on the part of the Management in terminating the services of four concerned workmen and eventually by a notification dated 19-3-1982, the Government of Bihar in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Sec. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to and called for the sake of brevity as the said Act) referred the following dispute for adjudication of the respondent No. 1:-

Whether the dismissal of Sarvshri Satyeshwar Pal, Arjun Sharma, Fankaj Kumar Chakarborty and Manoranjan Sarkar is justified? If not, whether they are entitled to reinstatement or/and any other relief ?

5. Before the respondent No. 1, the Management appears to have filed an application contending therein that legality or validity of the domestic enquiry be decided as a preliminary issue and in the event the said issue was decided against the Management it may be permitted to adduce fresh evidence before the respondent No. 1. The petitioner, however, contended that the purported order of termination dated 26-10-1981 is in effect and substance an order of retrenchment and, thus, the Management should not be permitted to adduce evidence before the Labour Court.

6. By an order dated 5-10-1983, the said application of the Management was allowed, but it was observed that the Union shall always be at liberty to prove its contention that the termination amounted to retrenchment. The said order dated 5-10-1983 is contained in Annexure-8 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. Thereafter 12 witnesses were examined on behalf of the Management. The petitioner Union also examined several witnesses. Respondet No. 1 in his award dated 11-8-1936 on the basis of the evidence adduced by the Management before it came to the conclusion that the management has been able to prove its case as against the concerned