THAKORBHAI V DAVE Vs. MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has, inter alia, challenged the legality and validity of award dated 10.04.2000 passed in Reference (L.C.N.) No.47 of 1987 whereby Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Nadiad was pleased to reject the reference.

(2.) THE facts which can be carved out from the record of the petition are as under:

(3.) IT appears from the record that a show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner-workman dated 23.11.1985 wherein it is alleged that on 11.11.1985 the petitioner actively participated in the illegal strike and at about 7:30 hrs. on 19.11.1985 the present petitioner along with one Shri Bhikhabhai L. Gurjar and other two persons went to the house of said Shri Raval and threatened him, as indicated hereinabove. That the petitioner also filed a reply to the said show cause notice. IT appears from the record that an inquiry came to be initiated against the petitioner and the inquiry officer by report dated 08.07.1986 recommended to take appropriate action against the petitioner. That the petitioner was informed about the same by notice dated 28/31.07.1986 stating that on the basis of the said inquiry report, as it is not in the interest of the respondent-organization to continue the petitioner in service, the petitioner stand dismissed w.e.f. 31.07.1986 after office hours. IT was also communicated in the said notice that one month notice pay, as contemplated under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputed Act, 1947 ('the ID Act' for short) is also paid. IT appears from the record that the respondent-organization filed an application as contemplated under Section 32(2(b) of the ID Act before the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad ('the Tribunal' for short), which came to be registered as Application (I.T.) No.76 of 1986 in Reference (I.T.) No.591 of 1980, which was pending before the Tribunal whrein the Tribunal vide order dated 29.01.1988 granted approval by allowing the said application. IT is pertinent to note here that the petitioner did not participate in the proceedings of approval before the Tribunal.