GSRTC Vs. BECHARBHAI K KHUMBAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition challenges the order passed by the Conciliation Officer (respondent no. 2) dismissing the petitioner's application for approval for the dismissal of the first respondent workman under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act" for short).

(2.) The pertinent facts, in brief, are as under:

(3.) In view of the facts and circumstances noted and discussed hereinabove, it is obvious that the impugned order at Annexure-C to the petition suffers from a patent non-application of mind. Assuming for the sake of argument that the approval application is not adequately clear (which assumption I am making only for the purpose of testing the assertion of fact made in the impugned order), this did not come in the way of the second respondent when he issued the notice in the proceedings, which notice was specifically addressed to the first respondent-workman, both by name, designation and address, furthermore, the second respondent clearly closed his eyes to the record of proceedings before him. This record could not have been ignored inasmuch as the objections raised by the workman is filed at Exh. 10 thereof. If the second respondent had taken the trouble to even casually go through the notice issued by himself, or had taken a look at the workman's objections at Exh. 10 in the proceedings before him, it would not have been possible for him to hold that the identity of the conductor, whose dismissal is the subject matter of the approval application, is not disclosed. Under the circumstances. I can only conclude that the impugned order suffers from an obvious non-application of mind. The same, therefore, requires to be auashed and set aside. It is accordingly quashed and set aside.