SHAH T A Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application which involves the interpretation of S. 33(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioner, who was an employee of a concern called the Indian Tin Industries (Private), Ltd., and who was dismissed on 17 September, 1958 for misconduct during the pendency of proceedings relating to an industrial dispute before a labour court, questions the correctness of an order made by the labour court striking off an application presented by the company under the proviso to S. 33(2)(b) of the Act for approval of the dismissal of the petitioner.

(2.) In the proceedings before the labour court touching the industrial dispute, an award was made by it which was published in the official gazette either on 25 November, 1958, or on 26 or 27 of that month. Before this award was published, the petitioner had been dismissed by the company on 17 September, 1958, after the holding of an enquiry into an act of misconduct with which he was charged. On 18 September, 1958, the company made an application to the labour court seeking approval of the action taken by it. Although this application was pending before the labour court for at least two months and eight days before the award was published and the award became enforceable under the provisions of S. 17A after the expiry of thirty days from the date of the publication, the labour court very surprisingly made no order on that application. When, however, the company asked the labour court to strike off its application on the ground that it had become functus officio, it acceded to that request. It is this order made by the labour court which is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that an application properly presented by the company during the pendency of the proceedings relating to the industrial dispute, could not have been struck off by the labour court but should have been decided in obedience to the requirement of S. 33(5) of the Act.

(3.) The labour court thought that such adjudication was no longer possible since no adjudication upon an application under the proviso of S. 33(2)(b) was possible after the proceedings before the labour court relating to the industrial dispute had terminated. This view which the labour court reached rested on the provisions of Ss. 17A, 20(3), the proviso to S. 33(2)(b) and S. 33(5) of the Act.