DIPAK CHIMANLAL PATEL Vs. MAHENDRABHAI P. CHAVDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as " the Tribunal") in Complaint (I.T.) No.14 of 1999.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows:

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that permanent absorption of some of the members, Reference was preferred by some coworkers, which was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 ought to have preferred an application for approval under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the I.D. Act" for short). Any breach of section 33 of the I.D. Act would not permit any implementation of the order of the petitioner workman. He is also entitled to file complaint under section 33A of the Act. The Tribunal adjudicated the complaint, where the petitioner examined himself as witness and was also cross-examined. No witness was cross-examined for and on behalf of the respondent\Company. The petitioner was denied the relief he claimed before the Tribunal. He, therefore, is before this Court challenging the decision relying, essentially, on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Digwadih Colliery v. Ramji Singh reported in (1961) II LLJ 551(SC). It is the say of the petitioner that without understanding the object, the Tribunal has rejected his request. The dispute, which is pending in relation to other employees, was in connection with giving permanent status to temporary drivers. The petitioner, being a member of the Union, had played a role in collectively sponsoring such dispute under section 10(1) of the I.D. Act, and therefore, by way of this petition, he has sought the following reliefs: