9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Competency of reference to the Industrial Tribunal. 2. Validity of the disciplinary proceedings and charges against Kanraj. 3. Justification for reinstatement of Kanraj despite the Society's loss of confidence. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Competency of Reference to the Industrial Tribunal: The appellant argued that the reference to the Industrial Tribunal was incompetent as it was an individual dispute of four employees, not an industrial dispute, and was not taken up by the workmen of the Society. The Union sponsoring the dispute was a Union of Railway employees, not of the Society's workmen. However, a preliminary objection was raised that this plea was barred by res judicata. The High Court had earlier dismissed a petition by the Society challenging the reference's competence, holding it was sponsored by 4 out of 11 workmen of the Society. The appellant did not appeal this decision, making it final and binding. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that it was no longer open to the appellant to raise this plea in the present appeal, and the first point failed. 2. Validity of the Disciplinary Proceedings and Charges Against Kanraj: The Tribunal held that Kanraj's demand to be represented by a stranger to the Society was unjustified, and his refusal to participate in the enquiry was unreasonable. However, the Tribunal found the charges against Kanraj to be vague and lacking in detail, preventing him from adequately defending himself. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the charges did not specify details such as whom Kanraj had instigated or conspired with, or the specifics of the leaflets and propaganda he was accused of distributing. The Tribunal also found that Kanraj was justified in demanding copies of the documents mentioned in the second notice to provide an adequate reply. The Supreme Court emphasized that the principles of natural justice required that Kanraj be given a fair opportunity to defend himself, which was not provided in the initial enquiry. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the removal order and allow for a fresh enquiry was upheld. 3. Justification for Reinstatement of Kanraj Despite the Society's Loss of Confidence: The appellant argued that the Tribunal should not have directed Kanraj's reinstatement because the Society had lost confidence in him. The Supreme Court acknowledged that this argument might have had merit if the situation remained unchanged. However, it was informed that Kanraj had already been reinstated and fresh proceedings for his dismissal were underway. Given these subsequent developments, the Supreme Court found it inappropriate to set aside the Tribunal's reinstatement order, as it would complicate the ongoing proceedings. The Tribunal's order for reinstatement was therefore upheld. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the Tribunal's decision to set aside the removal of Kanraj and allowing for a fresh enquiry, while also upholding the order for his reinstatement.
|
