LexB.R. SINGH & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B.R. SINGH & ORS. ETC. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 [K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.] Constitution of India-Articles 19( l)(c) and 32-Workmen of Trade Fair Authority of India-Dismissal of-Whether legal. Industrial Disputes Act 1947-Sections 10(3), JOA (4A), 22 & A. B 23-Whether attracted. C Trade Fair Authority of India Employees (Conduct, piscipline and Appeal) Rule 32-Whether properly applied. . Trade Fair Authority of India Employees' Union had been demanding from. the management (i) housing facilities for the employees; (ii) regularisation of at least 50% ,of casual or daily rated employees and (iii) upward revision of the salaries and allowances of the workers. These demands were discussed by the Union with t.he manage- ment from mne to time but nothing concrete except assurances emerged. On October 29, 1986, the Union wrote to the General Manager seeking ilnplementation ·of the assurances not later than November 15, 1986. It was also communicated that the workers would proceed on one day's token strike on 13.11.86, if no action was taken. In response thereto the General Manager only assured the Union representatives that the Standing Committee which was seized of the matter, would be requested to take up the matter on priority basis but things remained standstill till the end of November 1986 and the reminders sent thereafter also did not yeild the desired result. There- upon on January 15, 1987 the Union sought permission to hold the general body meeting on 19.1.87 during lunch interval and in anticipa- tion of the grant of such permission issued notices of the meeting to the members. The General Manager, however declined to grant the neces- sary permission. But the General Body Meeting of the Union was held <1s scheduled and a decision was taken to strike work on 21.1.1987 as a protest. The management was put on notice, which reacted by suspend- ing the President, Vice President & other Executive Members of the Union. Workers' demand for withdrawal of the orders of suspension D E F G was rejected. Instead all the· remaining office bearers & leading activists' . H _were suspended. These suspended employees have filed a writ petition 257 A B c 258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R. challenging their suspension. During the strike some workers attended duty while some others gave undertaking in the prescribed form; all such workers were allowed to work but others who refused to sign the Undertaking but reported for work were denied employment. Efforts to solve the unemployment problem of such employees having failed, they too have filed a writ petition seeking necessary relief. By its order of March 3, 1987 the management terminated the services of all the 12 office bearers under Rule 32 of the Trade Fair Authority of India Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1977 without holding a departmental inquiry as contemplated by Rules 27 to 29 of the Rules. Accordin(l to the management the reason for not holding the inquiry was th~t the workers had terrorised & intimidated not only the Disciplinary Authority but also the witnesses and an atmosphere of violence, general in discipline and insubordination was created, as a result of which it was not practicable to hold the inquiry. D These dismissed employees have also filed a Writ Petitioll. One Raju, a casual labourer of TFAI since 1982, was sel~cted on July 4, 1986 as a Mini-stiller Driver. He joined the new post on the same day but his appointment was cancelled without assigning any reason and he was reverted as a daily wager. He too had joined the others for E regularisation of his service and has taken part in the strike. His services were terminated on December I, 1986 without any inquiry. He too has filed a Writ Petition challenging the action of the management. Another Writ Petition has been filed hy two daily-rated Security Guards of TFAI whose services were terminated, even though they had F remained on duty during the strike. Their contention is that they were dismissed as they refused to falsely implicate their co-workers who had espoused their cause. They urge their's was a case of victimisation. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the management, it was urged that as the petitions require collection and adjudication of facts, G the petitioners should be relegated to the Industrial Tribunal or the concerned High Court. On m
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.