P BALAKRISHNAN Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Termination of service of the petitioner in 1992, on proven misconduct, upheld by the first respondent/Labour Court in Ext. P1 Award in I.D. No. 191 of 1993, is the subject matter involved in this case.

(2.) Whether non-compliance of the statutory prescription under S. 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') without obtaining 'prior permission' of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court forwarding punishment in respect of a 'protected workman' during the pendency of any proceeding before the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court will result in automatic reinstatement and whether the intimation given by the Trade Union, furnishing the list of 'protected workmen' to the Management will enable the concerned workman to be recognized as a 'protected workman' by the Management, without any positive act of such declaration, are the 'legal questions' involved. Whether the petitioner workman is a 'protected workman' and whether 'typing work' was part of the duty attached to the post of "Commercial Assistant" held by the petitioner at the time of termination of service are the 'factual disputes'.

(3.) The petitioner joined service of the second respondent as a 'Typist - Clerk' in the year 1975. Later, he was provisionally promoted as 'Commercial Assistant' in the year 1982 and was confirmed in the said post. The case of the petitioner is that he was an office bearer of the Trade Union in the second respondent Company and was actively taking part in such activities. In connection with the service conditions of the employees, a charter of demands was submitted before the Management in 1988. But the negotiations failed and the rift between the Managements and the Union/workers got widened. The dispute raised on the said issue was finally referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha, where it was numbered as I.D. 201 of 1990 and was pending.