Dismissal of workmen for trade union activities is illegal and in violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : This appeal by special leave arises from an industrial dispute between the appellant M/s. M. L. Bose and Co., Calcutta, and the respondents, its workmen. Five items of dispute were referred by the West Bengal Government to the Third Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication; the principal amongst them was in regard to the dismissal of 47 persons. The respondents urged that this dismissal was wrongful and illegal and the dismissed workmen were entitled to reinstatement. The other items of dispute were in regard to the scale of pay, dearness allowance, holidays and leave. The industrial tribunal has held that the dismissal of the 47 workmen was illegal and has directed their reinstatement. It has also ordered that the appellant should pay them 1/3 of their total emoluments for the period from the date of dismissal till reinstatement. In regard to the other items of dispute the tribunal has made appropriate orders. In the present appeal we are principally concerned with the order of reinstatement.

2. The appellant is a private limited company which manufactures Laxmibilas Hair Oil, Barley and other products. It is a small concern and carries on its business on the cottage industries scale. Sometime in January 1957 a charter of demands was submitted by the appellant s workmen, and according to the appellant soon thereafter the workmen started coercive measures by way of slow down of production. On April 15, 1957, the appellant issued a notice calling upon its employees to stop subversive activities and to co-operate with the appellant; but according to the appellant this notice had no effect on the workmen.

3. The respondents case, on the other hand, is that the appellant disliked the fact that its workmen had formed a union which was registered on November 2, 1956, and it is this dislike which is really responsible for the subsequent events. The charter of demands submitted by the respondents to the appellant was forwarded by the respondents to the Labour Commissioner as well on February 19, 1957. The Labour Commissioner called for the comments of the appellant on the said charter. The appellant then swiftly reacted against this development by putting a notice which is alleged to have been hung up on the notice board on April 15, 1957, calling upon the workers to stop agitational activities. That according to the respondents is the genesis of the said notice.

4. Next day a charge-sheet was issued and hung up on the notice board against 10 employees. On April 17, 1957, the Labour Officer wrote to the appellant suggesting a joint conference. On April 18, 1957, the appellant dismissed the 10 workmen. Two days thereafter another charge - sheet was similarly hung up on the notice board and it was followed by dismissal of 5 workmen on April 22, 1957. It appears that at this stage the appellant applied to the Magistrate, Sealdah, under S. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against 17 of its employees. On April 25, 1957, a charge- sheet was affixed on the notice board against 32 workmen and they were dismissed on May 31, 1957. The respondents protested against this conduct of the appellant in thus dismissing a large number of its workmen illegally and that led to the present reference.

5. The tribunal has found that the orders of dismissal contravened S. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that they also contravened the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no enquiry was held in respect of any of the dismissals. The tribunal was not even satisfied that the notices alleged to have been posted by the appellant were posted on the notice board in fact, and it saw no reason why the appellant could not have served each one of the workmen individually with the said notice. It is significant that 16 of the workmen in any case were dismissed even before the date fixed for the enquiry had arrived. On the evidence the tribunal also thought that the attendance register disproved the appellant s contention that