HEMA CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES Vs. RAMKAILAS SAROJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner management has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated April 10, 2000 passed below Exhibit 7 by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Permission Application No. 20/1999 in Reference (I.T.) No. 108/1996 seeking approval to terminate the services of the Respondent as required under Section 33(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) As during pendency of Reference (I.T.) No. 108/1996 service of the Respondent were sought to be terminated and in fact an order came to be passed to terminate the service subject to the permission to be obtained from the Industrial Tribunal, the Petitioner submitted an application under Section 33(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking permission to terminate the service of the Respondent and to implement the order of dismissal dated June 11, 1999. It appears that the Petitioner wanted to withdraw Permission Application No. 20/1999 and, therefore, an application below Exhibit 7 was submitted before the Industrial Tribunal permitting the Petitioner to withdraw the Permission Application, which came to be rejected by the Industrial Tribunal vide impugned order dated April 10, 2000 directing that the Permission Application shall be decided on its own merits. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same the Petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Shri Vimal Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has vehemently submitted that as such it is the right and prerogative of the Petitioner to withdraw the Permission Application at any time subject to the risk of withdrawing the Permission Application and the necessary consequences, which may follow on the basis of the order of termination. It is further submitted that suppose the Permission Application is not submitted at all and the service of the Respondent is terminated, in that case, necessary consequences of not following the procedure as required under Section 33(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act may follow. It is submitted that merely because the Petitioner submitted an application under Section 33(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act and subsequently the Petitioner wants withdraw the Permission-Application the Industrial Tribunal ought to have permitted the Petitioner to withdraw the same.