TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1959 (7) TMI 57
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l made an award that the dismissal of Janardhana Bhatt was unjustified and directed that he should be reinstated with back wages from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement. The Government duly notified the award by their order, dated 27th January, 1954. Against this award the appellant preferred an appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Madras, on 25th February, 1954. While the appeal was pending the appellant dismissed on 29th April, 1954, the contesting respondent, M.S. Narayana Rao on the ground that he was found guilty of stealing. Thereupon the respondent filed an application before the Labour Appellate Tribunal under Section 23 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. That application was eventually disposed of by the Chairman, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Madras, by his Order, dated 23rd March, 1956. Before the Appellate Tribunal objection was raised by the management that the respondent was not entitled to file an application as he was not a "workman concerned" in the appeal but this objection was overruled. The Appellate Tribunal went into the merits of the case also and held that the dismissal of the respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rkman is or is not a "workman concerned" in an appeal pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal is a question of fact. In some of these decisions it has been pointed out that the word used is "concerned" and not "interested". Obviously there is a difference in the meaning of these two words. "Concerned" connotes a more intimate and direct relation to the matter than the word "interested". The distinction can be well brought out by giving a concrete instance. If a dispute arises between the management and the workers of a particular industrial establishment, say as regards the principles on which bonus should be granted it would be not inappropriate to say that even workers in other industrial establishments are also "interested" in the result of the adjudication. If the matter were to be taken up to a higher Court like the High Court or the Supreme Court the interest would be all the greater because if this Court or the Supreme Court were to lay down certain principles they would govern not only the particular establishment but every other establishment as well. But it will not be right to say that the workers of all th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties to the appeal. In the context the observations of Das, J., as he then was in the decision of the Supreme Court in Automobile Products of India, Ltd. v. Rukmaji Bala MANU/SC/0055/1955MANU/SC/0055/1955 : (1955)ILLJ346SC , as regards the object of Section 22 of 1950 Act should be borne in mind. It is true that in that case the Supreme Court was not called upon to decide the precise scope of the expression "workmen concerned in such appeal". But the object of the section as explained by his Lordship throws considerable light on the meaning to be attached to the expression "workmen concerned in such appeal". His Lordship said: The object of Section 22 of 1950 Act like that of Section 33 of the 1947 Act as amended is to protect the workmen concerned in disputes which form the subject-matter of pending proceedings against victimisation by the employer on account of their having raised industrial disputes or their continuing the pending proceedings. It is further the object of the two sections to ensure that proceedings in connection with industrial disputes already pending should be brought to a termination in a peaceful atmosphere and that no employer should dur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned Counsel for the management would mean that during the pendency of the appeal the management could effect further retrenchment and that the only remedy of the workers affected by the retrenchment was to seek a fresh reference under Clause 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Judge did not accept such an interpretation. With respect we agree with the principle of this decision of Rajagopalan, J. No other decision of this Court was brought to our notice in which a contrary view was taken. 6. Mr. R.M. Seshadri, learned Counsel for the appellant drew our attention to a recent judgment of the Bombay High Court in New Jehangir Vakil Mills v. Industrial Tribunal (1958) 2 L.L.J. 573, in support of his contention that a narrower interpretation should be placed on the words "workmen concerned in the appeal". We may at once say that this decision does not bear directly on the case before us as it was concerned with the interpretation of Sections 33 and 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act as amended in 1956. Section 33 of that Act inter alia provides that during the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a Conciliation Officer or a Board or of any procee....