it Petitions Nos 627 662296 27 1  452 of 1987
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
WITH Civil Miscellaneous Petition No 12733 of 1988
MK Ramamurthy MA Krishnamurthy and Mrs Indira Sawhney for the Petitioners
Ram Panjwani Raj Panjwani and Vijay Panjwani for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI J
This batch of petitions brought under Arti cle 32 of the Constitution of India challenge certain ac tions taken by the officers of the Trade Fair Authority of India TFAI in exercise of their disciplinary jurisdiction whereby the services of certain regular workmen have been terminated and several casual or daily rated workers are rendered jobless
Put briefly the facts giving rise to these petitions are as under The Trade Fair Authority Employees  Union Union here after was demanding housing facilities regularisation of atleast 50 of casual or daily rated employees and upward revision of the salaries and allowances of the workers of TFAI
These demands were discussed with the Chief General Manager of TFAI on August 29 1986 and thereafter from time to time but nothing concrete emerged
The case 262 of the Union is that the Chief General Manager had assured the Union representatives that although it may not be possi ble to regularise the service of casual labour to
the extent Of 50 some posts had already been identified and the Standing Committee of TFAI which was seized of the matter would take a decision at an early date
On the question of upward revision of wages and allowances the Union s case is that the Chief General Manager had given an assurance that pending final decision by the High Powered Committee of TFAI the scales prevailing in MMTC and STC could be adopt ed
The grievance of the Union is that despite these assur ances no action to implement the same was taken whereupon the Union wrote to the Chief General Manager on October 29 1986 seeking implementation of the assurances at an early date and not later than November 15 1986It was also commu nicated that the workers belonging to the Union had decided to proceed on a token strike of one day on November 13 1986
At a subsequent meeting held on November 3 1986 the General Manager of TFAI is stated to have assured the Union representatives that the Standing Committee will be request ed to take up the issue on priority basis so that the out come becomes known by the end of November 1986
No such decision was taken by the end of November 1986 not even after the Union s reminders of December 18 1986 and January 9 1987 whereupon the Union wrote a letter dated January 15 1987 to the Chief General Manager to permit the Union to hold a General Body Meeting of the Union on January 19 1987 during lunch hours
In anticipation of such permission being granted which had always been granted in the past the Union despatched notices to its members to attend the meet ing
However the Chief General Manager informed the Union representatives that the permission was refused
Within minutes of the receipt of this communication the President of the Union sent a reply stating that it was not possible to cancel the meeting at such short notice
The General Body Meeting was held as schedule and a decision was taken to strike work on January 21 1987 to protest against the management s failure to implement the assurances already given
On the same day January 19 1987 the Union served the management with a notice informing it about the decision to strike work on January 21 1987
The management reacted by placing the President Vice President and Executive Mem bers of the Union under suspension with immediate effect ie with effect from January 20 1987
This angered the striking workmen who had gathered outside the precincts of TFAI on January 21 1987
They demanded the immediate with drawal of the suspension orders failing which they threat ened that the strike would continue indefinitely
Intimation to this effect was served on the Chief General Manager
The management however suspended all the re 263 maming office bearers the executive members and leading activists of the Union wef January 23 1987
The strike was however called off wef
January 24 1987 according to the Union in the larger interest of TFAI and in national interest as the President of India was to inaugurate the AHARA 87 on January 25 1987 while according to the man agement it continued for almost two weeks
Writ Petition No 2961987 is by those 42 suspended workers
Now during the strike some of the casual workers at tended duty and their services remained unaffected some others who reported for duty after the strike and were prepared to sign an undertaking in the prescribed form were given work while the remaining casual workers who did not sign such an undertaking or were late in reporting for work were denied employment
The Union s case is that out of a total work force of about 500 casual workers 160 did not participate in the strike and about 90 signed the undertak ing and they have since been employed while the remaining casual workers are denied work
The Union sought the inter vention of the Union Commerce Minister and also invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Commissioner Delhi Administra tion with a view to finding an amicable settlement as the discharged workers were facing untold miseries
However contends the Union the response of the management was not positive and hence the Union was left with no alternative but to invoke this court s jurisdiction for an early solu tion of the unemployment problem faced by the workers
Writ Petition No 27187 is by 243 casual laborers who have thus been rendered jobless
Thereafter the management by their orders of March 3 1987 terminated the services of all the 12 office bearers and Executive Committee Members who had been suspended earlier in exercise of their power under the special proce dure outlined in Rule 32 of the TFAI Employees Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules 1977  The Rules  hereafter
This rule inter alia empowers the Board of TFAI to impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 25 which includes penalties from Censure to Dismissal without holding an inquiry if the Board is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing that it is not practicable to hold such inquiry or in the interest of the security of the Authority it is not expedient to hold such inquiry
This provision overrides the need to hold a departmental inquiry under Rules 27 to 29 of the Rules
The Board in the impugned orders of dismissal has assigned three reasons in support of its decision that is not practicable to hold an inquiry namely i you by yourself and together with and through other associates have threatened intimidated and terrorised the Disci 264 plinary Authority so that he is afraid to direct the inquiry to be held ii you the employee of Trade Fair Authority of India particularly through and together with your associates have terrorised and threatened and intimidated witnesses who are likely to give evidence against you with fear of repris al as to prevent them from doing so and iii as an atmos phere of violence and of general indiscipline and insubordi nation has been created by a group of suspended employees
The board has also stated in the impugned order that it is not expedient in the interest of security of the TFAI to hold an enquiry in the manner provided by the Rules
Annex ure I to each order sets out the reasons which impelled the Board to visit the 12 employees with the extreme penalty of dismissal
These 12 dismissed workers have challenged the orders of dismissal by their writ petition No 267 of 1987
Writ Petition No 452 of 1987 is by one Raju an employ ee of TFAI
He was a casual laborer of TFAI since 1982 and was selected on July 4 1986 as a Mini Stiller Driver in the scale of Rs260 400
He joined the new post on the same day but his appointment was cancelled without assigning any valid reason on July 25 1986 and he was reverted as a daily wager
He too had joined the others for regularisation of his service and had taken part in the strike
The management by office order dated March 2 1987 terminated his service wef December 1 1986
No enquiry was held nor was any opportunity to explain his conduct given to the delinquent before his services came to be terminated
He has there fore challenged the order dated July 25 1986 and the subsequent order dated March 2 1987 as violative of the principles of natural justice
Writ Petition No 662 of 1987 concerns two daily rated Security Guards of TFAI whose services came to be terminated by TFAI
The service of Bansi Dhar came to be terminated on April 2 1987 while that of his companion Vipti Singh came to be terminated on April 8 1987
Their allegation is that their services were dispensed with because they refused to give false evidence against their co workers who were active members of the Union and who had filed WP No 27187 challenging the mala fide action of TFAI terminating the services of 243 casual daily rated workers
They contend that even though they had remained on duty during the strike their services were terminated because they refused to falsely implicate their coworkers who had espoused their cause
They therefore contend that their termination smacks of victimisation
In all the writ petitions Mr NN Kesar Manager Admn TFAI 265 has filed his counter contending that as the
petitions require collection of facts this Court should refuse to entertain these petitions and should relegate the petition ers to the industrial tribunal or the concerned High Court
According to the deponent TFAI had to take action against the office bearers of the Union as they had created an atmosphere of violence and had paralysed the smooth func tioning of TFAI from November 1986 onwards
Instances of insubordination threats violence and lack of discipline have been enumerated to show that officers of TFAI found it difficult to carry out their functions and duties because of constant fear to themselves and their kith and kin
Even though permission for holding a General Body meeting on January 19 1987 within the precints of TFAI was refused the meeting was held at which inflammatory and provocative speeches were made by the Union leaders
Extracts from the speeches of the various Union leaders have been set out in the counter to acquaint the court to the type of atmosphere that prevailed at a point of time when several important foreign delegates and VIPs were attending the International Fair held by TFAI
The secret reports which were received from the officers of TFAI at different levels also suggested that trouble was brewing and immediate firm action was necessary
Therefore when the management learned that the employees had decided to go on a token strike on January 21 1987 it took action of suspending some of the office bearers of the Union
After the strike was prolonged upto January 23 1987 TFAI had to make alternative arrangements includ ing security arrangements to ensure that no untoward inci dent occurred during the visit of foreign VIPs and more particularly during the visit of the President of India who was to inaugurate the AHARA 1987 on January 25 1987
Even during the visit of the President certain employees posted themselves at the main gates along with the President Vice President General Secretary and Secretary of the Union for picketing
Since certain other inaugurations by VIPs were to take place between January 28 1987 and February 2 1987 TFAI was constrained to file a suit No 263 of 1987 in the Delhi High Court against the Union and seven office bearers to restrain them from preventing and obstructing the entry of delegates guest dignitaries etc
into the Pra gati Maidan where TFAI was having its fair
An ex parte injunction was granted prohibiting picketing slogan shout ing etc
within 75 meters of all gates leading to the Fair as shown in the map appended to the suit
It will thus be seen that according to TFAI the workers  agitation was not a peaceful one as is alleged by the petitioners
It was in the backdrop of these facts that the Board decided to terminate the services of the 12 employees by virtue of the power conferred on it by Rule 32 of the Rules
The reasons which impelled 266 the Board to take this drastic action have been set out in the annexure appended to each order of dismissal
TFAI therefore contends that the action taken against the 12 erring workers is just legal and proper and this Court should refuse to interfere with the same
So far as the suspended employees are concerned TFAI contends that it has power under Rule 22 of the Rules to suspend erring delin quents pending inquiry
Such suspended employees are enti tled to suspension allowance paid at 50 of salary and allowances
It is denied that TFAI has used the power of suspension as a coercive measure
It is however stated that the correct number of suspended employees is 34 as named in the Counter
Out of these 34 employees the suspension order of 33 workmen have since been revoked on acceptance of their explanation
Hence the suspension order that survives is against Peon Umed Singh only who is receiving suspension allowance as per rules
Insofar as the casual labour is concerned it is con tended that TFAI had taken over the maintenance of Pragti Maidan from CPWDwef
January 1983
The Standing Com mittee had therefore sanctioned a certain number of posts of the Engineering staff for this purpose
A number of daily wage posts on muster roll were created from time to time and were filled in by both skilled and unskilled labour
A proposal for regularising such employees was pending before the Standing Committee which had called for information
It was however tentatively decided that 85 posts may be consid ered urgently for regularisation
This proposal was cleared in January 1987
The matter was pending with the Internal Works Study Unit in the Ministry of Commerce and their report was awaited
It was therefore contended that TFAI was always sympathetic in its approach and yet the Union gave a call for a strike on January 19 1987
The TFAI denies that it did not provide work to casual labour when they reported on January 24 1987 or thereafter or that they demanded any such undertaking as alleged
As regards the termination of Raju s service it is contended by TFAI that he was given a provisional appoint ment on July 4 1986 but the same had to be terminated on July 25 1986 firstly because it subsequently came to light that he was convicted on June 30 1987 under Sections 87 and 113 of the Motor Vehicles Act and fined Rs300 and secondly because of his outrageous behaviour with his dealing assist ant on July 22 1986
These two reasons formed the basis and the grounds and the administrative reasons  for with drawal of the provisional offer made in the letter of July 4 1986
However the letter of July 25 1986 uses the words some administrative reasons  for cancel 267 lation of the order and impugned order of March 2 1987 gives no reason whatsoever
It is  therefore contended that since the offer was only provisional the petitioner had no right to the post and hence the petition deserves to be dismissed
So far as the termination of service of the two Security Guards is concerned it is contended that the allegation that their services were dispensed with because they refused to co operate with the management and give evidence against their co workers is denied
It is therefore contended that their petition is without merit
When these petitions reached hearing before this Court on October 13 1987 this Court passed a common order di recting the Chief Secretary of Delhi Administration to spare the services of a Judge of the Labour Court to look into the facts of these cases and finalise its report so as to reach the Registry of this Court on or before December 18 1987
Since the inquiry could not be finalised within the time allowed the time was extended upto October 31 1988
Shri Bhola Dutt Presiding Officer Labour Court VII submitted his report on October 29 1988
Before finalising its report the Labour Court gave an opportunity to the contesting parties to file their pleadings
Issues were framed thereaf ter parties were permitted to lead oral and documentary evidence counsel were heard on the evidence tendered and only thereafter the Labour Court recorded its findings
It came to the conclusion that the 243 casual labourers had been doing conservancy work since several years and all of them were denied work when they reported for duty on January 24 1987 and thereafter because the work of Safai Kamdars was handed over to MCDwef
January 22 1987
It howev er came to the conclusion that denial of work to all the 243 casual workers was not justified
So far as the only sus pended employee Peon Umed Singh is concerned the Labour Court opined that mere participation in the strike called by the Union would not furnish a sufficient cause to order large scale suspension of employees much less termination of their employment
Since 33 of his colleagues similarly suspended were taken back in service there was no justifica tion to single out Umed Singh for different treatment more so when no disciplinary action is initiated or contemplated against him
With regard to the termination of Raju driver s service the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the management had acted in an illegal manner
In the first place it was not possible to accept the reason that during the summer season there is paucity of work and hence the provisional offer made on July 4 1987 had to be cancelled within twenty days on July 25 1987
It would it difficult to believe that 268 within such a short period there was a slump in work neces sitating cancellation of the order
As to the second reason regarding his conviction under the Motor Vehicles Act it pointed out that the allegation that he had abused Amar Singh was not inquired into and the delinquent was not given an opportunity to explain his conduct
Certain other allega tions by the management regarding his behaviour eg absence without prior intimation etc all amount to misconduct for which a departmental enquiry was necessary and in the ab sence of such an enquiry the order was unsustainable
It therefore held that the termination of Raju s service was illegal
The case of the two security guards has been dealt with in detail by the Labour Court
The Labour Court points out that the management decided to refuse work to Bansi Dhar as his performance was not found to be satisfactory
He was served with memos dated December 25 1984 February 10 1986 and February 20 1987 with a warning to improve his perform ance failing which the management would be constrained to refuse work to him
The note submitted by the Chief Security Officer on March 3 1987 that his termination may be consid ered if he is found absent or indisciplined in future is indicative of the fact that the management desired to give him an opportunity to improve
Nothing had happened between March 3 1987 and April 2 1987 to warrant the termination of his service
The Labour Court therefore held that the termination of his employment by the order of April 2 1987 was not sustainable
As regards his companion Vipti Singh the management pointed out that apart from the fact that his service was not satisfactory as is reflected by the memos of August 14 1985 and October 20 1986 he was found to have signed the attendance register from March 23 1987 to March 29 1987 even though he was admittedly absent on those days
The Labour Court examined this ground in detail and came to the conclusion that even though the workmen had signed his presence on those dates some doubt arose on account of absence of cross marks in the register
The Labour Court therefore came to the conclusion that the termination of the service was also not justified
Taking note of the fact that the Union was demanding the upward revision of wages of non executive staff housing facility and regularisation of casual labour and the manage ment s failure to accede to the demands notwithstanding the meetings held on August 29 1986 November 3 1986 and January 19 1987 the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the strike was legal and justified peaceful and nonvi olent and for a duration of only three days
The Labour Court also 269 came to the conclusion that there was no justification for resorting to the exercise of extraordinary powers under Rule 32 of the Rules
In the view of the Labour Court participa tion in strikes and slogan shouting are part of trade union activity and hence it was not legal and proper to visit the twelve Union leaders with the extreme punishment of dismiss al from service
It therefore held that their dismissal was illegal unjustified and wholly arbitrary
All the above findings of the Labour Court have been assailed by the TFAI in the objections to the report
It is not necessary for us to indicate in detail the nature of the objections but suffice it to say that according to the TFAI the findings reached by the Labour Court are one sided perverse and contrary to the evidence on record
We have perused the objections as well as the reply filed thereto by the petitioners
From the above resume it clearly emerges that the char ter of demands put forth by the Union was pending considera tion
The main demands were three in number namely i for upward revision of wages ii for regularisation of services of casual labour and iii for providing housing facilities to the employees
Efforts to settle these pending issues through negotiations were made at the level of the Chief General Manager and it appears that this response was not negative
It appears that the question of regularisation of casual and daily rated workers was referred to the Standing Committee of the Board which had taken the tentative deci sion to create 85 posts on the regular establishment for regularisation
This proposal was forwarded to the IWS unit of the concerned Ministry for approval
However since the final decision was delayed the union leaders become restive
The Union representatives therefore decided to call a General Body Meeting to decide on the future course of action
On January 15 1987 it wrote to the management to permit it to hold a meeting on January 19 1987
Notwith standing the refusal of the permission the Union was com pelled to hold the meeting as it had informed its members and it was not possible to shift the venue at short notice
The angered leaders who addressed the workers condemned the management s action in refusing to solve the outstanding problems of the workers in strong language
We have perused the extracts from their speeches on which TFAI relies
The language used is no doubt harsh and it would have been proper if such language had been avoided
Counsel for TFAI also strongly contended that since the strike was illegal the workers are not entitled to any relief
We see no merit 270 in this submission
The right to form association or unions is a fundamental right under Article 191c of the Consti tution
Section 8 of the Trade Unions Act provides for registration of a trade union if all the requirements of the said enactment are fulfilled
The right to form associations and unions and provide for their registration was recognised obviously for conferring certain rights on trade unions
The necessity to form unions is obviously for voicing the de mands and grievances of labour
Trade unionists act as mouthpieces of labour
The strength of a trade union depends on its membership
Therefore trade unions with sufficient membership strength are able to bargain more effectively with the managements
This bargaining power would be consid erably reduced if it is not permitted to demonstrate
Strike in a given situation is only a form of demonstration
There are different modes of demonstrations eg go slow sit in work to rule absentism etc and strike is one such mode of demonstration by workers for their rights
The right to demonstrate and therefore the right to strike is an important weapon in the armoury of the workers
This right has been recognised by almost all democratic countries
Though not raised to the high pedestal of a fundamental right it is recognised as a mode of redress for resolving the grievances of workers
But the right to strike is not absolute under our industrial jurisprudence and restrictions have been placed on it
These are to be found in sections 103 10A4A 22 and 23 of the ID Act  for short
Section 103 empowers the appropriate Government to prohibit the continuance of a strike if it is in connection with a dispute referred to one of the fora created under the said statute
Section 10A4A confers similar power on the appropriate Government where the industrial dispute which is the cause of the strike is referred to Arbitration and a notification in that behalf is issued under Section 103A
These two provisions have no application to the present case since it is no body s con tention that the union s demands have been referred to any forum under the statute
The field of operation of Sections 22 and 23 is differ ent
While Section 103 and Section 10A4A confer power to prohibit continuance of strike which is in progress Sec tions 22 and 23 seek to prohibit strike at the threshold
Section 22 provides that no person employed in a public utility service shall proceed on strike unless the require ments of clauses a to d of sub section 1 thereof are fulfilled
The expression public utility service  is de fined in Section 2n and indisputably TFAI does not fall within that expression
Section 23 next imposes a general restriction on declaring strikes in breach of contract during pendency of i conciliation proceedings
ii pro ceed 271 ings before Labour Court Tribunal or National Tribunal iii arbitration proceedings  iv during the period of operation of any settlement or award
In the present case no proceedings were pending before any of the aforementioned fora nor was it contended that any settlement or award touching these workmen was in operation during the strike period and hence this provision too can have no application
Under Section 24 a strike will be illegal only if it is commenced or declared in contravention of Section 22 or 23 or is continued in contravention of an order made under Section 103 or 10A4A of the ID Act
Except the above provisions no other provision was brought to our attention to support the contention that the strike was illegal
We therefore reject this contention
The next question is whether the material on record reveals that the office bearers of the union had given threats to officials of TFAI as alleged
The Labour Court has negatived the involvement of office bearers of the union in giving threats either in person or on telephone
We have perused the evidence on record in this behalf and we are inclined to think that there were angry protests and efforts to obstruct the officers from entering the precints of TFAI but there is no convincing evidence of use of force or violence
From what we have discussed above we are of the view that although TFAI was sympathetic to regularisation of service of the casual workers since the proposal had to pass through various levels it was not possible to take an early decision in the matter
It was held up in the Ministry for which TFAI could not be blamed
So also the proposal to revise the wages of non executive staff was under considera tion since some time
However the Union leaders lost pa tience and took a decision to proceed on strike on the eve of the President s visit to TFAI
This action of the Union impelled TFAI to make alternative arrangements
It there fore dismissed the 12 union leaders invoking Rule 32 of the Rules
On going through the material placed before the Labour Court we feel that the criticism levelled by TFAI that it exceeded its brief and has betrayed a somewhat one sided approach cannot be said to be wholly misplaced
We have however looked to the bare facts found by it
We are howev er disinclined to analyse the evidence before the Labour Court because we are of the view that even though TFAI was not averse to the demands of labour it could not take a final decision at an early date for want of approval from the concerned Ministry
This angered the Union representa tives more particularly because the 272 executive staff was granted upward revision of salary allowances etc and hence they decided to call a meeting of the general body to decide on the future course of ac tion
In their frustration they decided to put pressure by proceeding on strike
During the strike period certain events happened which we wish were avoided
But fortunately nothing destructive meaning thereby damaging to the proper ty of TFAI took place
A few brushes and exchange of strong words appear to have taken place which are described as threats by the management
The vast mass of labour was only responding to the call of the Union
Even the union repre sentatives were acting out of frustration and not out of animoisity for the officers
The facts of this case there fore demand that we appreciate the conduct of both sides keeping in mind the prevailing overall situation
While the workers were frustrated for want of an early solution the management was worried because of the impending visit of the President on January 25 1987
Instead of trying to lay the blame at the door of either party which would only leave a bitter taste for long we think we should resolve the crisis in the larger interest of the institution
Taking an overall view of the facts and circumstances which emerge from the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record we are of the opinion that while some of the Union leaders acted in haste they do not appear to have been actuated by any oblique motive
The management also took action against the workmen not because it was unsympa thetic towards their demands but because of the anxiety caused to them on account of untimely action taken by the Union only a few days before the President s scheduled visit to the fare
The management also felt hurt as its reputation was at stake since several dignitaries from abroad were participating in the fare
Its action must therefore be appreciated in this background
The interest of the institution must be paramount to all concerned including the workmen
At the same time this Court cannot be oblivious to the economic hardship faced by la bour
We have already pointed out earlier how both parties reacted to the tense atmosphere that built up over a period of time
The facts found by the labour court clearly show that while the labour was frustrated as its demands were outstanding since long and they were finding it difficult to combat the inflation without an upward revision in wages etc the management was worried about TFAI s reputation likely to be lowered in the eyes of visiting dignitaries because of certain events that were happening due to the workers  agitation
In these circumstances it would be unwise and futile to embark upon a fault finding mission
273 Keeping the interest of the institution in mind and bearing in mind the economic hardships that the labour would suffer if the impugned orders are not set aside we think that it would be desirable to restore the peace by directing the re instatement of the workers
However so far as the case of the security guard Vipti Singh is concerned we are constrained to say that the material on record does disclose that he had signed the attendance register showing his presence from March 23 1987 to March 29 1987 even though he was in fact absent on those days
His explanation in this behalf is far from convincing
We are therefore of the opinion that he deserves punishment but not the extreme punishment of dismissal from service
We think that the ends of justice would be met if we direct his reinstatement without back wages
So far as the case of driver Raju is concerned it must be pointed out that the management cancelled the offer of July 4 1986 by the letter of July 25 1986 because of his conviction under Sections 87 and 113 of the Motor Vehicles Act and his so called outrageous behaviour with the dealing assistant on July 22 1986
These being clearly acts of misconduct the action of the management must be held to be penal in nature and cannot be sustained as it was taken without hearing the delinquent
To hold an enquiry against him at this late stage is not desirable
In the result all the writ petitions are allowed and the rule is made absolute in each case to the extent indicated hereinafter
The management will prepare a list of casual daily rated workers who were its employees prior to the strike on January 21 1987 in accordance with their seniori ty if such a list does not exist
TFAI will provide them work on the same basis on which they were given work prior to the strike
After the seniority list is prepared TFAI will absorb 85 of the seniormost casual workers in regular employment pending finalisation of the regularisation scheme
TFAI will complete the regularisation process within a period of 3 months from today
TFAI will determine the umber of casual employees who would have been employed had they not proceeded on strike
The wages payable to such casual employees had they been employed for the period of 6 months immediately preceding the date of this order will be worked out on the basis of actual labour employed and the amount so worked out will be distributed amongst the casual employees who report for work in the next three months after TFAI resumes work to casual labour
Peon Umed Singh Securi ty Guard Bansi Dhar and Driver Raiu will also be reinstated in service forthwith
They too will be paid 274 back wages less suspension allowance if any for a period of 6 months immediately preceding this order
So far as Driver Raju is concerned he will be absorbed in regular service as per the offer made in the letter of July 4 1987 disregarding the subsequent communication of July 25 1987
The security guard Vipti Singh will also be reinstated in service but without back wages
In the case of the 12 dis missed workers we are on the facts placed before us of the view the circumstances did not exist for the exercise of extraordinary powers under Rule 32 of the Rules
The orders terminating the services of the 12 union representatives are therefore set aside and they are ordered to be reinstated in service forthwith with back wages coveting a period of 6 months immediately preceding the date of this order
They should be reinstated forthwith
In view of the above direc tions no further order is required on the CMP TFAI will pay Rs5000 in all by way of costs to the Union
Y Lal Petition allowed


Summary:
Sub section 4 of section 3 of the provides that no order passed by an officer men tioned in sub section 3 shah remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof unless in the mean time it has been approved by the State Government
The Commissioner of Police Delhi in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section 2 of section 3 of the Act as delegated to him by the Delhi Administration passed an order on 1911989 detaining the petitioner The order of detention was approved by the Administrator on 3111989
The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the validity of the detention order contending that i the day on which the order of detention was passed should he included in the period of computation of twelve days and since the order of detention was approved on 3111989 that is on the thirteenth day after the expiry of twelve days it had ceased to be in force ii the non supply of the copy of order delegating the power of deten tion on the Commissioner of Police has seriously prejudiced the detenu and iii there was serious non application of mind by the detaining authority
342 Dismissing the petition this Court HELD 1
In computing the period of twelve days referred to in sub section 4 of section 3 of the Act the day on which the order of detention was passed should be excluded
Therefore the approval of the order of detention was made within twelve days after the making of the order of deten tion
350D 11 Sub section 4 of section 3 has given a clear indication as to the computation of twelve days
It excludes the day on which the order is made
The word after  in sub section 4 of section 3 of the Act is very significant and clearly excludes any contention that in computing the period of twelve days the day on which the order of deten tion is passed should be included
The period of twelve days has to be calculated after  the making of the order of detention ie the day on which the cause of action arises has to be excluded in computing the period of time
346E F 349D 348H 12 It is true that in sub section 4 the officer making the order of detention shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government but the word forthwith  will not be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the period of twelve days inasmuch as there is clear indica tion that the said period shah be computed after the order is made
Computation of twelve days including the day on which the detention order is made will be ignoring the direction of the legislature as given in sub section 4 itself that the said period of twelve days will commence after the making of the detention order
346F G 2
When the language of a statute is plain and simple the question of ascertaining the intention of the legisla ture does not arise
349D 21 Sub section 4 of section 3 admits of only one interpretation regarding the computation of twelve days and accordingly the question as to the adoption of the inter pretation which ensures to the benefit of the detenu does not arise
346H 347A TC Basappa vs T Nagappa   Haru Das Gupta vs State of West Bengal  and Ratcliff vs Bartholomew  followed
Nillapareddi Chandrasekhara Reddy vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr  C Krishna Reddy and Anr
vs Commissioner of Police Hyderabad  Ors 343 and Gulam Sarwar vs State of Bihar  Ors
  distinguished
Manjuli vs Civil Judge AIR 1970 Bom
1 and In re VS Mehta AIR 1970 AP 234 approved
The expression in the meantime in sub section 4 of section 3 of the Act clearly indicates that the State Government can approve of the order of detention even on the day it is passed
The language of sub section 4 of section 3 is plain and simple and the question whether the order of detention can be approved on the day it is passed or not does not at all arise
349F Prabhu Narain Singh vs Superintendent Central Jail Varanasi ILR 1961 1 All 427 disapproved
The Act does not provide for supplying a copy of an order under Section 33 of the Act
In the instant case the said order has not been relied upon by the Commissioner of Police in passing the impugned order of detention
It may be that by virtue of the said order under section 33 of the Act the Commissioner of Police could exercise the powers of the detaining authority under section 32 of the Act
But that has nothing to do as to the subjective satis faction of the Commissioner of Police in making the impugned order of detention
351D E 5
In the instant case a copy of the application for bail was with the detaining authority before he made the order of detention
So it is not correct to say that the detaining authority proceeded on the basis that the detenu had made applications for bail in all the cases pending against him
Accordingly there was no non application of mind by the detaining authority
352A B  C