RAM SHANKAR Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO II

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by the workman in this writ petition is to the order dated August 22, 1998 of the Industrial Tribunal dismissing the complaint of the petitioner workman under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Notice of the writ petition was issued on the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that] though in the impugned order titled "Award", six issues are stated to have been framed during the course of the complaint proceedings, but the Tribunal has answered only issues No. 1 & 5. Rule was issued in the petition on February 21, 2000. The respondent inspite of opportunity did not file the counter affidavit. None appeared for the respondents for the last few dates and today also. The counsel for the petitioner has been heard.

(2.) Section 33A entitles an employee, aggrieved by a contravention by the employer of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act, to make a complaint of the same. Section 33 prohibits an employer from inter alia terminating the service of an employee during the pendency of conciliation proceedings or proceedings before a Labour Court or a Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute.

(3.) The complaint dated March 23, 1987 of the petitioner workman before the Industrial Tribunal was that, he had been working with the respondent No. 2 D.D. Gears Pvt. Ltd./employer since May 17, 1981 that Industrial Dispute No. 14 of 1987 was pending before the Tribunal before which the complaint aforesaid was made between the respondent No. 2 employer and its workmen; that though the employer had after the reference of the industrial dispute entered into settlement with the workmen but the employer had not decided other issues like the night allowance; that the employer had issued a concocted charge sheet and suspended the petitioner and after a farcical inquiry terminated his services; that the action of the employer amounted to victimization and the said action was illegal since the employer had not filed any application under Section 33(2)(b) seeking approval of the Tribunal to terminate the services of the petitioner during the pendency of the Industrial Dispute No. 4 of 1987. It is significant that in the complaint no date on which the services of the petitioner have been terminated was stated.