Judgment

GUPTA, J.:- This is an appeal by special leave from an award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, on December 9, 1976 in Reference No. 307 of 1968 directing reinstatement of twelve workmen dismissed by the appellant, Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India Private Limited. The appellant company carries on the business of manufacturing tyres, tubes and several other products in Bombay. Disputes arose between the management and the workmen employed in the companys tyre curing department leading to a strike by these workmen from March 3, 1967. This strike was called off an May 15, 1967, according to workmen on certain assurances given by the Commissioner of Labour. The case of the management is that even after the workmen resumed work, they adopted a deliberate go-slow policy resulting in fall in production. On September 14, 1967 the management put up a notice asking the workmen to desist from continuing with the go-slow tactics. The notice however had no effect and from October 4, 1967 the workmen working in the tyre curing department again went on a strike.

2. Between October 27 and 31, 1967 the management issued charge-sheets to 102 workmen alleging that they had resorted to wilful go-slow. The chargesheets issued were in identical language and they read as follows :

"You are charged with the following act of misconduct under the Companys certified standing order No. 24 (C), viz.

Wilful slowing down in performance of work or abetment, or instigation thereof.

You have wilfully slowed down in performance of work as per particulars given below :-"

The particulars were then mentioned. Three inquiry officers were appointed to inquire into the charges. Almost all the workmen retrained from participating in the inquiries; the 12 workmen concerned in this appeal also remained absent. The inquiry officers found the workmen guilty of adopting wilful go-slow tactics. The management accepted the findings of the inquiry officers and dismissed the workmen other than those who were protected workmen as defined in the Expln. to Section 33 (3) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The management also decided to dismiss the protected workmen. As a reference concerning an earlier dispute (Reference No. 406 of 1967) was pending before the Tribunal, applications were made under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act for approval of the action of the management in dismissing the workmen and under Section 33 (3) (b) for permission to dismiss the protected workmen.

3. It appears that subsequently, on April 17, 1968 the parties reached a settlement. The more important terms of the settlement were :-

(1) The Firestone Tyre Employees Union agreed to withdraw the strike.

(2) The dispute relating to the dismissal of 101 workmen (one of the workmen concerned having died in the meantime) was to be referred for adjudication by a joint application made by the parties under Section 10 (2) Of the I. D. Act,

(3) 77 of the dismissed workmen were to be re-employed on temporary basis till the disposal of the adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal.

(4) The remaining 25 workmen, including the 12 we are concerned with in this appeal, were not to be taken back but the management would pay to them 50 per cent of their basic wages and dearness allowance from the date of the retirement till the disposal of the adjudication by the Tribunal.

4. As agreed, a joint application by the parties was made on which the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Bombay, under Section 10 (2) of the I. D. Act (Reference. No. 307 of 1968) referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, the disputes between the parties relating to the demands detailed in the schedule to the order of reference. Two distinct matters are mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the schedule. The second matter mentioned in paragraph 2 does not survive for consideration. The first paragraph which is divided into two parts, (A) and (B) reads as- follows :

"SCHEDULE

1 (A) : The workmen listed at Serial Nos. 1 to