9911796707
TMI Blog1959 (7) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bhatt was unjustified and directed that he should be reinstated with back wages from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement. The Government duly notified the award by their order, dated 27th January, 1954. Against this award the appellant preferred an appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Madras, on 25th February, 1954. While the appeal was pending the appellant dismissed on 29th April, 1954, the contesting respondent, M.S. Narayana Rao on the ground that he was found guilty of stealing. Thereupon the respondent filed an application before the Labour Appellate Tribunal under Section 23 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. That application was eventually disposed of by the Chairman, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Madras, by his Order, dated 23rd March, 1956. Before the Appellate Tribunal objection was raised by the management that the respondent was not entitled to file an application as he was not a workman concerned in the appeal but this objection was overruled. The Appellate Tribunal went into the merits of the case also and held that the dismissal of the respondent was not justified. The Tribunal, therefore, directed the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Appellate Tribunal is a question of fact. In some of these decisions it has been pointed out that the word used is concerned and not interested . Obviously there is a difference in the meaning of these two words. Concerned connotes a more intimate and direct relation to the matter than the word interested . The distinction can be well brought out by giving a concrete instance. If a dispute arises between the management and the workers of a particular industrial establishment, say as regards the principles on which bonus should be granted it would be not inappropriate to say that even workers in other industrial establishments are also interested in the result of the adjudication. If the matter were to be taken up to a higher Court like the High Court or the Supreme Court the interest would be all the greater because if this Court or the Supreme Court were to lay down certain principles they would govern not only the particular establishment but every other establishment as well. But it will not be right to say that the workers of all the other establishments are workers concerned in the pending reference or pending appeal. It is, therefore, necessary to give to the word ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /SC/0055/1955MANU/SC/0055/1955 : (1955)ILLJ346SC , as regards the object of Section 22 of 1950 Act should be borne in mind. It is true that in that case the Supreme Court was not called upon to decide the precise scope of the expression workmen concerned in such appeal . But the object of the section as explained by his Lordship throws considerable light on the meaning to be attached to the expression workmen concerned in such appeal . His Lordship said: The object of Section 22 of 1950 Act like that of Section 33 of the 1947 Act as amended is to protect the workmen concerned in disputes which form the subject-matter of pending proceedings against victimisation by the employer on account of their having raised industrial disputes or their continuing the pending proceedings. It is further the object of the two sections to ensure that proceedings in connection with industrial disputes already pending should be brought to a termination in a peaceful atmosphere and that no employer should during the pendency of these proceedings take any action of the kind mentioned in the sections which may give rise to fresh disputes likely to further exacerbate the already strained relation bet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was to seek a fresh reference under Clause 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Judge did not accept such an interpretation. With respect we agree with the principle of this decision of Rajagopalan, J. No other decision of this Court was brought to our notice in which a contrary view was taken. 6. Mr. R.M. Seshadri, learned Counsel for the appellant drew our attention to a recent judgment of the Bombay High Court in New Jehangir Vakil Mills v. Industrial Tribunal (1958) 2 L.L.J. 573, in support of his contention that a narrower interpretation should be placed on the words workmen concerned in the appeal . We may at once say that this decision does not bear directly on the case before us as it was concerned with the interpretation of Sections 33 and 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act as amended in 1956. Section 33 of that Act inter alia provides that during the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a Conciliation Officer or a Board or of any proceeding before a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute no employer shall in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter to the prejudice of the workmen conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the establishment or part of the establishment to which the dispute relates. Nor do we feel called upon to pronounce as to who would be entitled to file an appeal under Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1950. It is sufficient to say that the decision has no direct bearing on the construction of the words workmen concerned in the appeal . 7. After all, Section 22 of the 1950 Act does not prohibit the management from taking any disciplinary action against any workmen for misconduct or other sufficient reason. All that it lays down is that the management should inflict the punishment or terminate the services of such workmen with the express permission in writing of the Appellate Tribunal. If the management have good reasons for their proposed action, we do not expect the Appellate Tribunal to withhold arbitrarily such permission. 8. As the dismissal of the respondent was in contravention of Section 22 of the Act of 1950, the dismissal was rightly set aside. In this view it was not necessary for the Chairman of the Tribunal to go into the merits. Indeed, this would in a way preclude him from dealing with an application by the management for permission to dismiss th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
