LexMANAGEMENT OF NORTHERN RAILWAY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. versus INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MANAGEMENT OF NORTHERN RAILWAY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. I' INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR A:'\D ANR. Ja1111ary 27, 1967 [V. Bl!ARGAVA AND G. K. MITTER. JJ.) l1ulus1ria/ Disp111e-Don1estic enq11iry-Na111r(I/ justice, requiren1ents of. A B Res Judicala:-Petition filed 1111der Art. 226 of Consti1t11iv11 of lndia- Competency of reference nf di.rpute to lrulu~trial Tribunal challeng!d- High Cqurt dis111issing petition-No appeal filed aga;,1s1 Higl1 Court's C order-Question of ca111pete11cy 0/ rrj.:>rencc whetlu.·r can be raised in appeal against Tribunal's award. Supreme Cou,·t-Appea/ agai1u1 Industrial Tribunal's award-Respon- Je111 whether can cl1alle11ge Tribunal's order on grounds no/ accepted by Tribunal. Respondent No. 2 was employed as Head Clerk in the Appellant Sociely w~ich was a c~peral!vc society of railwaymen. The Society Jevelled cer- tain charges against him and so~ other employees, and a commi:tee was appointed to enquire inlo the said charges. The request made by Respon- dent No. 2 that a railway worker or an official of the railY.ray workers' Union be allowed 10 accompany him ai lhe enquiry was turned down. On this accounl he refused to appear al the enquiry which proceeded in his absence. On receipt of the enquiry commillee's report the Vice-President of the Sociely gave a second notice to Respondent No. 2 asking him to show cause why he should not be dismissed. He asked for copies of the proceedings at the enquiry bu1 this request was not complied wilh and despite his submissions he was. dismissed. Adverse qrders were also passed aga1mt other employees. The raiJway workers' Union thereupon ra;sc<l an industrial dispule which was reforred by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal. The Sociely filed a wri1 pelilion under Ari. 226 of the Conslitution on the ground that the dispule having been raised by the railway workers' Union and not by the Society's own employees, the refer- ence to the Tribunal was not competent. The High Court dismissed the petition. Thereafter lhe Tribunal heard lhe matter and held, so far as Respondent No. 2 was concerned, that (i) the charges agoinst him were vague, (ii) tha1 he was not entilled lo be accompanied at lhe enquiry by a stranger. and (iii) that the enquiry against him was vitiated owing to a denial of natural justice. The Society, by special leave. appealed to lhis Court. HELD : (i) The appellant's plea relating to the compe'ency of the reference was barred bv re_-; j11dicata as the same plea had been raised by the appellant before ihe High Court and had been rejecled. The order of the High Court was no1 an interlocutory order but a final order in regard 10 the proceedings under Ari. 226. The appropriate remedy for the appellant a~ainst the High Court's order wa< to come up in appeal to this Court d1her bv a cerlificate under Art. 133 or hy special leave under Art. 136 of the Constilution. [483 F; 484 DJ Satyadhyan Gho.<YJ/ & Ors. v. Sm. Deurajin Debi & Anr. [1960] 3 S.C.R 590, di<linguished. D E F G H • II N. U.Y. CO-OP. SOCY. v. JN])USTRIAL TRIBUNAL (Bhargava, I.) 471! Ramesh and Anr. v. Genda/a/ Moti/a/ Patni & Ors., [1966) 3 S.C.R. 198. relied on. (ii) The respondents were entitled to support tbe decision of the Tribu. nal ll\-en. on grounds which were not accepted by the Tribunal vr on other grounds which may not have been taken notice of by the Tribunal while Ibey were patent on the faoe of the record. (486 D] B Ramanbhai Ashabhai Patel v. Dabhi Ajitkumar Fulsinji & Ors., A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 669 and Powarl Tea Estate ''· Barkataki (M.K.) and Ors.,. [1965] ll L.L.J. 102, relied on. c D E F G H (iii) The Tribunal rightly held that the second responclcnt was .not entitled to be represented by a stranger to the Society at the enquiry pro· pooed to be held against him. [487 D-E] (iv) The charges against the second respondent were vague and the material which was available in supp'ort of them was never disclosed to him. In these circumstances the mere refusal of the second respondent to appear at the enquiry would not satisfy the requirements of natural justille and make the enquiry valid. [487 F·G] The second notice issued by the Society to the second respondent was not required by any rule or law analogous. to Art. 311 or the Constitution, but in the instant case this subsequent opportunity· was the only opportunity Which could have satisfied the f"..quirement
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.