BATA INDIA LTD Vs. KANIKRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner carries on the business of manufacture of footwear engaging several workmen at its factory premises in Peenya industrial area, Bangalore, amongst others. The respondent-workman was issued with a chargesheet-cum-show cause notice dt. 2-5-2000 Annexure-E, alleging commission of acts of misconduct, at 2 P.M. on 7-3-2000 after the closure of the first shift by instigating other co-workers to squat inside the main gate blocking the movement of the Officers and refusal to leave the factory premises though the management directed the workers to do so, amongst other charges. Disciplinary proceedings followed culminating in the order dt. 3-5-2002 Annexure - F dismissing the respondent from the services and simultaneously filing the serial application No. 22/2002 before the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, invoking Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, for short Act, seeking approval of the order of dismissal dt. 3-5-2002.

(2.) The State Government by order dt.16-11 -2000 Annexure-A referred the points of dispute between the petitioner and its workmen relating to Lockout, due to gherao and go-slow, and legality of the strike and claim for full wages, for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, which was numbered as ID 138/2000. The order of reference when called in question in W.P. 37965/2000, by the Union of workmen, this Court having clubbed two other writ petitions, by a common order dt.2-9-2005 Annexure -K, dismissed the writ petition reserving liberty to the parties to make additional pleadings and lead additional evidence both oral and documentary.

(3.) Before the Industrial Tribunal, the serial Application No.22/02 in ID 138/2000 was resisted by filing statement of objections of the respondent interalia contending that the petitioner did not apply for and secure written permission of the Tribunal under Section 33 (1)(b) of the Act to dismiss the respondent for acts of misconduct connected with the dispute and the application for post facto approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act is not maintainable. The Tribunal in the premise of pleadings of the parties, framed an additional issue over the fairness of the domestic enquiry and after recording the depositions of the witness for the parties, and marking documents, by order dt. 10-8-2005 Annexure-J, held the domestic enquiry fair and proper. Thereafter, by order dt. 28-3-2008 Annexure-N, dismissed the application under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Act. Hence this writ petition.