N RARICHAN Vs. R K VENU NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for decision in this Original Petition has been the subject matter of judicial decisions for nearly a decade now and has been pronounced upon by the Supreme Court in several decisions. The question is about the scope and applicability of S.33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, read with the proviso thereto. The petitioner before me is a workman who has been dismissed from service on 27-1-1967 during the pendency of an Industrial Dispute. An application for approval as envisaged by the proviso to S.33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was filed before the Tribunal before whom the dispute was pending on 17-1-1967. The approval has been granted by the order Ext. P3. It is this order that is impugned before me.

(2.) Counsel on behalf of the petitioner took three points before me:

(3.) Elaborating on the first point, counsel has taken me through a number of decisions. Without adverting to all those decisions I may briefly state that his contention specifically was that the application for approval, having been made on 17-1-1967 and admittedly there having been no payment or offer for payment before that date, was not sustainable. He contended that the normal procedure is to pay the wages or to offer the payment, then to dismiss and then to make the application for approval. If an employer chose to apply before the dismissal, he must nevertheless pay before the application or at least make the offer for payment before the application. He invited my attention to R.60 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and Form K thereof and contended that the application should state that payment has been made and it is impossible of compliance if the payment is subsequent to the application.