HOTEL SUDARSAN Vs. SUKESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as 'the Act' in short) makes very fastidious provisions relating to conditions of service with respect to workmen when a dispute between them and the management is pending before any of the Authorities stipulated under the Act, viz., the Conciliation Officer, Board of conciliation, Labour Court or Tribunal and the National Tribunal.

(2.) The provisions of Section 33 of the Act makes the requirements statutory and renders it statutorily ineludible that any attempt to alter the conditions of service or to impose any punishment for such workmen during the pendency of such dispute, shall be sanctioned only with the prior permission and approval of the competent Authority.

(3.) The petitioner in this case is stated to be a firm engaged in the business of running a hotel by the name "Hotel Sudarsan". The 1st respondent is said to be an assistant cook engaged by them for the last several years. The petitioner alleges that the 1st respondent was habituated to unauthorised absence of different spells, which compelled them to issue Ext.P1 charge sheet dated 16.04.2013. The petitioner asserts that the 1st respondent did not even cause any reply to these allegations which, therefore, constrained them to cause an enquiry, culminating in Ext.P2 report, in which again the 1st respondent did not participate. As per them, the competent disciplinary Authority, thereafter, issued Ext.P3 order, dated 11.10.2013, imposing a punishment of dismissal from service on the 1st respondent.