SOHAN SINGH Vs. LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to direct the respondent no.1 to initiate recovery proceedings against respondent no.2 u/s 33(C) (1) of the I.D. Act on the application moved by the petitioner for the recovery of back wages and consequential benefits.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent no.2 as Semi- Clerk on 14.4.87 and alleging his involvement in a Trade Union demonstration, a charge sheet was issued against him on 8.3.2000. Thereafter a domestic enquiry was held after which the services of the petitioner were dismissed on 1.4.2003 and an application u/s 33(2) (b) of the I.D Act was filed by the respondent no.2 which was subsequently withdrawn on 15.11.2007.

(3.) THE contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the approach adopted by the respondent no.1 is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice interpreted by the Apex Court in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors.,2002 1 LLJ 834. Inviting the attention of this court to the said judgment, counsel submits that the Apex Court clearly took a view that the respondent management cannot be placed at a more advantageous position after withdrawing the application moved by it under Section 33 (2) (b) of the I.D. Act as the approval under Section 33 (2) (b) of the I.D. Act is mandatory and in the absence of the same, the order of the dismissal or discharge becomes void ab-initio and inoperative.