Case: D. N. Banerji Vs. P. R. Mukherjee And Others

(1) Pratui Chandra Mitra was the head clerk, and Phanindra Nath Ghose, the sanitary inspector of the Budge Municipality, and they were also members of the Municipal Workers 196 Union. On receipt of complaints against them for negligence, insubordination and indiscipline, the chairman of the municipality suspended them on 13/7/1949, drew up separate proceedings, and called for an explanation within a specified date. After the explanations were received, they were considered at a meeting of the commissioners held on 6/8/1949, and by a majority, the commissioners confirmed the order of suspension and directed the dismissal of the two employees. At the instance of the Municipal Workers union who questioned the propriety of the dismissal, the matter was referred by the State of West Bengal on 24/9/1949 to the industrial tribunal for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act. The tribunal made its award on 13/2/1950 that the suspension and punishment of the two employees were cases of victimization, and It directed their reinstatement in their respective offices(2) The municipality took the matter to the High court at Calcutta by means of a petition for a writ of certiorari under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. There were prayers In the petition for quashing the proceeding before the tribunal, for cancellation of the award, and for an order restraining the authorities from giving effect to the award and from taking any steps in pursuance thereof. At the instance of the High Court, a separate application was filed under article 227. Both the petitions were heard by Harries C. J. and Sambhu Nath Banerjee J. The points raised before them on behalf of the petitioners were five in all : (a) that there was no industrial dispute, and therefore there could be no reference under the Industrial Disputes Act to any tribunal ; (b) that the said Act was not applicable to disputes with municipalities : (c) that even if it did, it was ultra virus; (d) that the tribunal should not have directed reinstatement of the dismissed employees; and (e) that the award was bad on the merits. These contentions were negative by the learned judges, and the petitions were dismissed. But leave was granted under article 132 (1) of the Constitution, and that is how the matter has now come up before us(5) Points (a) and (b) are interlaced. The dismissal of the two employees was taken up by the Municipal Workers Union who challenged it as grossly improper. Thus it is clear that there was a dispute between the employer, viz.. the municipality on the one side and the workmen represented by the union on the other.

Court's reasoning:
(4) Whether on the facts of a particular case the dismissal of an employee was wrongful or justified is a question primarily for the tribunal to decide, and here the tribunal held that the dismissals were clear cases of victimization and hence wrongful. Unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention, it is not for the High court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere(23) Having regard to the definitions found in our Act, the aim or objective that the legislature had in view, and the nature, variety and range of, disputes that occur between employers and employees, we are forced to the conclusion that the definitions in our Act include also disputes that might arise between municipalities and their employees in branches of work that can be said to be analogous to the carrying out of a trade or business. It is unnecessary to decide whether disputes arising in relation to purely administrative work fall within their ambit. After all whether there is an industrial dispute at all is for government primarily to find out, for It is only then it has jurisdiction to refer. Moreover, it is not every case of an industrial dispute that government Is bound to refer. They may refer some, but may not also. It is a question of expediency(24) There was no ground urged before us or before the High court that the sanitary inspector and the head clerk of the municipality were officers and not "workmen" within the meaning of the Act. The dispute raised on their behalf by the workers union of which they were members is, in our view, an "industrial dispute" within the meaning of the Act.