MANAGEMENT OF BIRLA TEXTILES Vs. RAM SAWROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Clause -X of the Letters Patent is directed against the final judgment dated 19.11.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 2814/2007, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant to assail the award dated 29.01.2007 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in OP No. 94/2005, (on the appellant's application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "ID Act") seeking approval of its dismissal order dated 28.03.1985), has been rejected.

(2.) The brief facts taken note of by the learned Single Judge in impugned order are that the respondent/workman joined the services of the appellant/Mill in October, 1990. He became a member of the Textile Mazdoor Congress (Regd.). On 12.01.1994, he was issued a charge-sheet alleging that he alongwith 30 other workmen had, on 10.01.1984 at about 11.30 a.m., forcibly entered the administrative block and misbehaved with one Mr.Hemant Kumar, the Chief Executive Officer of the Mill, because transfer orders were issued in their names upon closure of the appellant's weaving section. The appellant also alleged that the errant workmen had continued with their gherao of Mr. Hemant Kumar till 6:30 p.m. and also stopped the Labour Officer from entering the premises. The respondent/workman denied his presence at the site on the date of the incident. This led to institution of departmental enquiry against him. The enquiry proceedings were not completed and as there were successive change in the Inquiry Officers. However, the respondent alongwith 30 other workmen-who were accused of involvement in the aforesaid incident, were dismissed from service on 28.03.1985. Thereafter, the appellant moved the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act before the Tribunal seeking approval of the dismissal order dated 28.03.1985, since the matter was already pending before the Tribunal . The respondent contested the said approval application and claimed that the entire incident was fabricated by the appellant since the appellant was looking for a reason to oust him and the other union members from service. He also claimed that the appellant had not even remitted one month's salary to him, which was a necessary precondition for filing an approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act. Admittedly, the same Industrial Tribunal was also seized of the reference of the industrial dispute raised by the workman against his dismissal. The Tribunal framed the following issues for its determination:

(3.) In an identical appeal [LPA 34/2020] filed by another employee, this Court had the occasion to consider exactly the same contentions as are urged in the present appeal. The facts in the said case; issues framed in OP filed by the appellant; and; the decision of the Tribunal on the basis of evidence lead by the management are alike. Therefore, it would suffice to extract the findings rendered by us in the order dated 21.01.2020 disposing of the appeal as follows: