BINNY LTD Vs. THOMAS PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent preferred before the 3rd respondent Tribunal Ext. P1 complaint under S.33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 alleging that termination of bis service was illegal on account of the pendency of I. D. No. 139 of 1964 in which, according to him, he was concerned. In Ext. P2 counter statement the management contended that the first respondent's service was terminated for the reason that the 2nd respondent to whom the undertaking, the Feroke Tile Works, was sold wanted to make their own arrangements as regards certain posts. Both Exts. P1 and P2 show that the 2nd respondent assumed control and management of the undertaking from 28-4-1967 The first respondent alleged that the sale has not been completed and the management contended that the sale was with effect from 28-4-1967 itself. The Sale Deed itself was executed sometime later but with effect from 28-4-1967.

(2.) The 3rd respondent in Ext P6 award found that the first respondent's service was terminated from the close of business on 27-4-1967 for misconduct and that the same amounted to victimisation and colourable exercise of power. For that reason it held that Ext. P1 complaint was maintainable, meaning thereby that S.33 of the Act was attracted to the instant case and that the termination was in contravention of that provision since no permission was obtained in that behalf. The Tribunal further said that no show cause notice was issued and no inquiry held, and that, therefore, the impugned termination was unjust and illegal. According to the third respondent though the first respondent was entitled to be reinstated the same could not be ordered since the factory was closed on 20-5-1969. Therefore it held that the petitioner is liable to pay him wages till 20-5-1969. As regards the sale itself the Tribunal said in Para.12 of Ext. P6 as follows:-

(3.) The facts admitted or found are: The first respondent's service in the Feroke Tile Works was terminated from the close of business on 27-4-1967; the said undertaking stood sold to the 2nd respondent from 28-4-1967; the 2nd respondent assumed control and management of it on 28-4-1967. On these facts the question arises whether the case on hand is one where the workman's (first respondent's) service was interrupted on account of sale of the undertaking in which he was employed or one where he was discharged from service for misconduct, or both.