Case: Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd Vs. Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan

1. The Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd. Nagpur, was, at the material dates, a public limited Company, and the respondent was employed as a mechanic therein. In June 1950, goods belonging to the company were stolen and suspension fell on the respondent. There was an enquiry into the matter, and that resulted in his dismissal on 28-6-1950, on the ground of gross negligence and p73 misconduct. He was then prosecuted on a charge of theft, but that ended in his acquittal on 3-3-1952. Thereafter, he applied to the company to be reinstated, and failing to get redress filed on 1-10-1952, an application before the Labour Commissioner under S. 16 (2), of the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Act No. 23 of 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for reinstatement and compensation. The company resisted the claim on the ground, inter alia, that as the applicant had been dismissed on 28-6-1950, he was not an employee on the date of the application, that accordingly there was no "Industrial dispute touching the dismissal of an employee" as required by S. 16, sub-ss. (1) and (2) of the Act, and that, in consequence, the proceedings under that section were incompetent. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, before whom the matter came up for hearing, agreed with this contention, and dismissed the application. The respondent preferred a revision against this order to the Provincial Industrial Court under S. 16 (5) of the Act, and by its order dated 5-2-1954, that court held that a dismissed employee was an employee as defined in S. 2 (10) of the Act, that a dispute by such an employee was an industrial dispute within S. 2 (12) of the Act, and that the application under S. 16 (2) of the Act was therefore maintainable. In the result, the order of dismissal was set aside and the matter remanded for enquiry on the merits. Against that order, the Company appealed to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which by its order dated 10-10-1954, affirmed the decision of the Provincial Industrial Court, and dismissed the appeal. The Company has preferred the present appeal against this order under Art. 136. Pending the appeal to this Court, the Company went into liquidation and has been taken over by the State of Madhya Pradesh, and is now being run under the name of Central Provinces Transport Services (under Government ownership) Nagpur. On the application of the respondent, the record has been suitably amended.

Reasoning:
It is not disputed that a question of reinstatement is an industrial matter as defined in S. 2 (13) of the ActWe do not see any force in either of these contentions. Section 2 (12) and S. 2 (13) of the Act are substantially inpari materiawith S. 2 (k) of Act No. 14 of 1947, and the ratio of the decision in 1949 F C R 321: A I R 1949 F C 111 (A), will be as much applicable to the one enactment as to the other. Nor does it make any difference that there were comprised in the reference other items which fell within the definition under S. 2 (k), because if the Government had no jurisdiction under the Act to refer the question of reinstatement of dismissed employee for adjudication, then the reference must, to that extent, be treated as a nullity, and it would be immaterial that, it wasintra viresas regards the other items of dispute6. We are also unable to accede to the contention of the appellant that the inclusive clause in S. 2 (10) of the Act is an indication that the legislature did not intend to include within that definition those who had ceased to be in service. In our opinion that clause was inserted ex abundanti cautela to repel a possible contention that employees discharged under Ss. 31 and 32 of the Act would not fall within S. 2 (10), and cannot be read as importing an intention generally to exclude dismissed employees from that definition. On the other hand S. 16 of the Act expressly provides for relief being granted to dismissed employees by way of reinstatement and compensation, and that provision must become useless and inoperative, if we are to adopt the construction which the appellant seeks to put on the definition of employee in S. 2 (10).We must accordingly hold agreeing with the decision in 1949 F C R 321: A I R 1949 F C 111(A), that the definition of "employee" in the act would include one who has been dismissed and the respondent cannot be denied relief only by reason of the fact that he was not in employment on the date of the application9. The preponderance of judicial opinion is clearly in favour of the last of the three views stated above, and there is considerable reason behind it. Notwithstanding that the language of S. 2 (k) is wide enough to cover a dispute between an employer and a single employee, the scheme, of the Industrial Disputes Act does appeal to contemplate that the machinery provided therein should be set in motion, to settle only disputes which involve the rights of workmen as a class and that a dispute touching the individual rights of a workman was not intended to be the subject of an adjudication under the Act, when the same had not been taken up by the Union or a number of workmen. If that were the correct position, the respondent was not entitled to apply under S. 16 (2) of the Act as the workmen in the industry had not adopted his dispute p73 as their own and chosen to treat it as theircasus belliwith the company. But then, we are directly concerned in this appeal not with the Industrial Disputes Act No. 14 of 1947 but with the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act No.23 of 1947, and in the view which we take of the rights of the respondent under that statute, there is no need to express a final opinion on the question whether a dispute simpliciter between an employer and a workman would be an industrial dispute within S. 2 (k) of Act No. 14 of 1947Thus, there is a clear recognition of the rights of an individual employee as distinguished from a class of employees, to move for redressSection l6 is intended, in our opinion, to enable an employee to enforce his individual rights when there is an order of dismissal, discharge p73 or removal or suspension, and in the context, "industrial dispute" must be interpreted as including the claim of an employee who has been dismissed, for reinstatement and compensation.