Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between a government company and its employees represented by a union concerning the termination of services of 168 muster roll employees. The employees had not reported for duty since October 12, 1995, leading the company to issue notices stating that their absence would be deemed as abandonment of service under the Certified Standing Orders. The employees challenged their termination through writ petitions in the High Court, which ultimately ruled in favor of the employees, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court analyzed whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, given that the matter involved an industrial dispute. The court noted that the absence of the employees did not constitute abandonment of service, especially since there was no inquiry conducted prior to termination, violating principles of natural justice. The court also highlighted that the High Court should not have intervened in the matter as it was an industrial dispute that should be resolved under the Industrial Disputes Act. The court quashed the termination order, reinstating the employees with notional service benefits but without payment for the period of absence. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the need for disputes to be resolved in appropriate forums rather than through writ petitions. The court concluded that the High Court's decision was erroneous and set aside the dismissal of the writ petition, allowing the union to raise an industrial dispute under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act if entitled. The appeals were allowed without costs.
Headnote
A) Employment Law - Termination of Service - Validity of Termination under Standing Orders - U.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, Clause L-2.12 - The court held that the absence of workmen did not equate to abandonment of service, and termination without inquiry violated principles of natural justice. The order was quashed, and workmen were deemed in service with compensation. (Paras 1-8). B) Writ Jurisdiction - Appropriate Forum for Industrial Disputes - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The court ruled that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition as the dispute was industrial in nature, requiring resolution under the Industrial Disputes Act. (Paras 8-10). C) Natural Justice - Compliance with Principles - U.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 - The court emphasized that notices issued did not comply with natural justice requirements, as individual notices were necessary for each workman. (Paras 10-12). D) Strike Legality - Definition and Consequences - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The court clarified that an illegal strike does not equate to authorized absence, and the absence of workmen was not proven to be due to a strike. (Paras 12-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition concerning the termination of services of workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the termination order and reinstating the workmen with notional service benefits but without payment for the period of absence. The court emphasized that the dispute should have been resolved under the Industrial Disputes Act and not through writ jurisdiction.
Law Points
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- U.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act
- 1946
- Article 226
- natural justice
- abandonment of service
- illegal strike
- statutory terms of service
