MANAGEMENT OF BPL LIMITED BANGALORE Vs. BINDUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question arises in these writ petitions and therefore, heard both sides at the stage of admission itself on main petition and disposed them by this order.

(2.) THE question that arises for consideration is as to whether the adjustment of one month's salary payable to the respondents after cessation of the earlier order of dismissal would amount to non-compliance of the provisions of Section 33 (2xb ). To answer this question the facts which are necessary are as follows: the respondents herein are the workmen under the petitioner-company. Certain disputes regarding the charter of demands, termination of trainees and discharge of probationers were referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, by the State of Karnataka which came to be registered as Industrial Dispute No. 27 of 1999 which is still pending consideration. In the meantime, the petitioner herein issued show-cause notice to these respondents and enquiries were conducted wherein the respondents participated. Ultimately, the enquiry officer has held that the respondents were guilty of misconduct. These findings were forwarded to the respondents for their representations and on consideration of the respondents' representations, the Disciplinary Authority passed orders of dismissal from service w. e. f. the dates mentioned therein. As Industrial Dispute No. 27 of 1999 was pending serial applications were filed seeking approval of the dismissal of the respondents as required under Section 33 (2xb) of the Industrial Disputes Act which came to be tried by the Industrial Tribunal. The respondents filed objections contending inter alia that the applications are not maintainable. After the arguments were heard and the matter stood posted for orders, the Management filed a memo in each case to the effect that the petitioner has already issued letter to the opposite party rescinding the order of dismissal and treating the opposite party as in service until further orders by the applicant and sought permission to withdraw all the first applications. Subsequently, the Industrial Tribunal passed an order on the basis of the memo permitting the petitioner to withdraw the applications filed by it for the reasons stated in the memo. Thereafter, the petitioner had paid the subsequent wages which were due till the date of filing of the applications and also one month's salary in advance as contemplated under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act and simultaneously also filed serial applications seeking approval of the dismissal order passed subsequently. Yet again the respondents raised objections that the applications are not maintainable, merely on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to deduct/adjust the amount of one month's salary paid to the respondents while filing the first serial applications and therefore, the petitioner has not complied with the payment of wages in full. The learned Industrial Tribunal dismissed the applications as not maintainable by upholding the objections raised by the respondents. Hence, these petitions are filed before this Court.

(3.) IT is settled law that to prefer a serial application, it is a mandatory requirement that three things mentioned in the proviso to Section 33 (2) (b) will have to be complied with. This question was considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Strawboard Manufacturing company Limited, Saharanpur v Gobind, as follows: