D.T.C. Vs. CHANGGA MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-management had sought from the Industrial Tribunal approval of its decision to remove the respondent from its service for some serious act of misconduct. Approval of the said action taken was sought under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947(`the Act') because of the pendency of some industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal between petitioner- management and its workmen in which the respondent-workman was also interested though his alleged misconduct had nothing to do with the industrial dispute pending adjudication there.

(2.) IN the approval application it was claimed that the respondent had been removed from service after holding proper inquiry against him and also that one month's wages, as required under the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Act had been remitted to respondent by money order.

(3.) LEARNED Industrial Tribunal treated and decided the issue of validity of the departmental enquiry as a preliminary issue and it was held vide order dated 06.08.2002 that a fair and proper inquiry was not held. Then opportunity was given to the management to adduced evidence before the Tribunal for establishing the alleged misconduct of the respondent. However, no evidence was adduced thereafter by the management.