MANGT. OF BIRLA TEXTILES Vs. RAM SWAROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition filed by the management assails the order dated 29.01.2007 passed by the Industrial Tribunal No.1, Karkardooma Courts in OP No.94/2005. Under the impugned order, the Tribunal has rejected the petitioner's approval application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('ID Act' for short).

(2.) The respondent joined the petitioner/Mill in October 1970 and was an active member of Textile Mazdoor Congress (Regd.). On 12.01.1984 the workman was issued a charge sheet alleging that he along with 30 other workmen had, on 10.01.1984 at about 11.30 am, forcibly entered the administrative block and misbehaved with one Mr. Hemant Kumar, the Chief Executive officer of the Mill, because a transfer order was issued in their names upon closure of the petitioner's weaving section. It was also alleged that the errant workmen had continued with their gherao of Mr. Hemant Kumar till 6.30 pm and had also stopped the labour officer from entering the premises. When the respondent/workman denied his presence at the site on the date of incident, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. Even though the inquiry could not be completed due to successive change in the Inquiry Officers, the petitioner dismissed the respondent from service, as also the other 30 workmen accused of being involved in the incident, vide its order dated 28.03.1985. In view of the pending industrial dispute between these parties, the petitioner filed an approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act before the Tribunal seeking approval of its dismissal order dated 28.03.1985.

(3.) In his reply to the approval application, the respondent/workman specifically denied the petitioner's allegations and pointed out that the petitioner, being aggrieved by the genuine and legitimate demands being raised by him as an active union member, had fabricated the incident as it was looking for a reason to oust him and the other union members from service. He further claimed that the petitioner 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.