BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPO Vs. DEVABHAI ZALABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 29.4.2006 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar, in Approval Application No. 8 of 1995 (Reference I.T. No. 8 of 1991) wherein the present petitioner had submitted an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking approval of the Industrial Tribunal for dismissal of the present respondent. The Industrial Tribunal, after completion of hearing, dismissed the aforesaid application for non-compliance of provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act as the salary for one month had not been paid. The aforesaid order of nonapproval for the dismissal of the respondent is under challenge before this Court.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent workman was working as daily wager-Beldar in the Water Works Department of the petitioner Corporation. He was found to be in indulging in corrupt practice. He was suspended from service and a chargesheet was given on 6.9.1992. Inquiry was conducted against the respondent. After fullfledge inquiry and hearing to the respondent workman, as he was found guilty of corrupt practice, he was terminated from service on 19.9.1995. The said order of termination was subject matter of Approval Application No. 8 of 1995. However, the Tribunal considering the fact that the respondent workman was not paid full month's salary as notice pay, dismissed the Approval Application of the petitioner.

(3.) This Court has heard learned advocate Mr. Munshaw for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Yogen Pandya for the respondent workman. This Court has also gone through the impugned order and the material available on record. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has argued that the respondent workman was found indulging in corrupt practice and due to which a preliminary inquiry was carried out and thereafter, fullfledged departmental inquiry was set up and in the departmental inquiry, an opportunity of hearing was provided to the respondent and ultimately, he was found guilty of misconduct. Therefore, the petitioner was compelled to seek approval for his dismissal from service as he involved in a grave misconduct in the nature of adopting corrupt practice while discharging his duties. He has further argued that the petitioner has complied with the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act and at the time of seeking approval, the petitioner has submitted approval application along with necessary documents showing payment of one month salary as well as arrears of pay to the respondent workman which is sufficient compliance so far as the provision of law is concerned. He has therefore submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in not appreciating properly the facts and circumstances of the case and wrongly dismissed the application for approval. Therefore, the award of the Industrial Tribunal is required to be interfered with.