I T C LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of 41 Writ Petitions presented by the I.T.C. Limited, Bangalore, the following important question of law arises for consideration :

(2.) The facts of the case, briefly, stated are these :

(3.) (i). Shri Shantibhushan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contended that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to make any such interim award or order. Elaborating this contention, he states as follows : The power conferred under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act is a limited power. Under that Section the Labour Court or Tribunal or the Conciliation Officer, as the case may be, before whom an application is required to be made under the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Act seeking its approval to the order of dismissal made by the applicant-management, has only to find out whether a prima facie case has been made out by the management for the grant of approval to the imposition of penalty and if the authority is satisfied that proper procedure had been followed before inflicting the penalty, the authority is required to accord approval to the order of dismissal. The authority has no jurisdiction to make any award or any order in the nature of award directing the management to pay full or any part of the wages either in the event of dismissal of the application or on granting the application, whether after approving the validity of the inquiry or after holding the inquiry itself in case a finding had been recorded to the effect that the disciplinary inquiry held by the management was invalid. It is also well established that the authority has no final adjudicatory power and even after the final order is made on the application, it is open for the party concerned to raise an industrial dispute and if such an industrial dispute is raised by the party and is referred for adjudication by the Government under Section 10(1) of the Act, the order made and the findings recorded by the authority functioning under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act are not binding, and the findings recorded in Section 33(2)(b) proceedings do not operate as res judicata.