MANAGEMENT OF STATESMAN LT Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 26 th April, 1985 and 7th December, 1995 against declining the grant of approval to the Petitioner under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ,,ID Act) for dismissal of the Respondent No. 2 Shri S.K. Saxena. This writ petition was admitted for final hearing on 18 th October, 2000 and thereafter the counsel for the Respondent No. 2 has not been appearing despite repeated adjournments. On 21st December, 2011 this Court directed the Petitioner to place on record the entire inquiry report, which has been placed.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the record including the counter affidavit of the Respondent No. 2. The present petition is the second round of litigation by the Petitioner before this Court. The petitioner alleges that the Respondent No. 2 committed violation on 24th May, 1974 while he was employed as typist with it, for which an enquiry was initiated. Pending the inquiry the Respondent No. 2 was debarred from entering the office and during the pendency of this order, the Respondent No.2 again mis-conducted on three counts, that is, (i) shouting abusive and insulting slogans against officer, (ii) destroying made up pages in case room and (iii) disobedience of a prohibitory order dated 24 th May, 1974. An inquiry into the second violation was conducted and the inquiry officer found that the first two charges were proved against the Petitioner, however, the third charge was not proved and came to the conclusion that the Respondent No. 2 be dismissed from service. An application was filed by the Petitioner before the learned Tribunal under Section 33 (2) (b) of the ID Act seeking approval of its action of dismissal of the Respondent No. 2 during the pendency of ID Nos. 7 and 8 of 1975 between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2. The learned Tribunal refused to grant approval and dismissed the application. Challenging the said order dated 29 th May, 1981 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, the Petitioner filed a writ petition before this court being W.P. (Civil) No. 2088/1981. This Court dealt with the matter at length and observed that the findings of the learned Tribunal were incorrect however, since the learned counsel for the Petitioner sought time to lead additional evidence, the matter was remanded back. It would be relevant to reproduce certain findings of this Court in W.P. (Civil) 2088/1981 decided vide order dated 29th July, 1982 as under: "The Industrial Tribunal held that the letter dated May 24, 1974 was not produced by the Management before the Enquiry Officer. Relying upon the finding of the Enquiry Officer, that the workman did not flout the instructions contained in the said letter, the Tribunal came to the conclusion:

(3.) IN Lord Krishna Textile Mills vs. its Workmen, 1961 (3) SCR 204 their Lordships laid down the parameters regarding the scope of interference by the Tribunal under Section 6E (2) (b) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is paramateria Section 33 (2) (b) of the ID Act. It was held: