P B KUMAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A controversy which has been hanging fire for long, atleast so far as this Court is concerned has cropped up again and we propose to resolve this controversy by the following order.

(2.) THE question is:when the Labour Court is seized of a matter under Section 33 (3) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act has power to make an interim order to pay full or part of the wages to the dismissed workman pending final orders?

(3.) THE brief facts of the case are:the petitioner was working in the 2nd respondent Hotel at bangalore as Electrician in the maintenance department with effect from 15. 3. 1971. He was charge-sheeted on 27,8. 1991 over an alleged misconduct that on 13. 8. 1981 at about 6. 45 p. m. he stole a vimal pant piece belonging to one Padma Ranka of Reliance Textiles, who was displaying his products in the hotel of second respondent. An enquiry was conducted and the workman was found guilty. The petitioner workman was dismissed. After the order of dismissal the second respondent filed an application under Section 33-2 (b) for approval. The workman filed objections and the Labour Court by its order dated 22nd February, 1991 held that the domestic enquiry was bad and invalid. That order of. the Labour Court was challenged in W. P. No. 17858/91 and by order dated 9. 9. 1991 this Court refused to interfere and dismissed the Writ Petition. Then, the workman filed an application before the Labour Court on 1. 9. 1994 for interim relief and the Labour Court rejected the application. Hence, the Writ petition.