RAJAGOPAL Vs. E I D PARRY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE G. Rajagopal originally filed the writ petition and since died during the pendency of the writ petition, the legal representatives of the said Rajagopal were brought on record in and by order dated February 7, 1991 in W. A. No 774 of 1988. The said Rajagopal will hereinafter be called as 'the first petitioner'.

(2.) THE first petitioner was employed as a watchman in E. I. D. Parry (India) Ltd. , Ennore, madras. He was then posted to supervise the loading of the condemned gunny bags. On a surprise inspection by the Manager, it was found that 761 newly printed gunny bags and 430 second hand gunny bags in good condition were loaded in the lorry. Apart from these gunny bags there were stainless steel tubes, one drum, tin sheets, brass valves and lead sheets weighing about 200 Kgs. were also loaded. But for the inspection of the Manager, these materials would have been lifted from the factory. In those circumstances, the Management, the first respondent herein, initiated disciplinary proceedings against the first petitioner and after following the due procedure, the first respondent, through an enquiry officer, held inquiry and that the Inquiring Officer in his report held that the first petitioner was guilty of all charges framed against him and that on the basis of the findings of the Inquiring Officer, the first respondent management, by order dated May 9, 1978, dismissed the first petitioner from service. During that period, two industrial disputes viz. , I. D. Nos 76 and 78 of 1978 were pending before the labour Court. I. D. No. 76 of 1978 relates to the non-employment of workman Elumalai and I. D. No. 78 of 1978 relates to the suspension of another workman Wilson Manoharan. The Labour Court passed an Award dated February 13, 1979 in I. D. No. 76/78 holding that the non-employment of the worker Elumalai was justified. The Labour Court by its Award dated november 30, 1978 dismissed I. D. No. 78/78 on the ground that the dispute was withdrawn. After a period of more than one year, the first petitioner filed a complaint under Sec. 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour court contending that he was dismissed from service on July 9, 1957 during the pendency of the aforesaid industrial disputes, without seeking approval under Sec. 33 (2) (b) of the Act. The labour Court, madras, by the impugned award dated August 6, 1983 in Complaint No. 1/80 dismissed the said complaint on the ground that the first petitioner Rajagopal was not a workman concerned in the disputes which were then pending. In those circumstances, the first petitioner filed the above writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the aforesaid order made in Complaint No. 1/80 dated August 6, 1983.

(3.) MR. Fenn Walter, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that in so far as I. D. No. 78/78 is concerned, the Union, in which the petitioner was a member, had sponsored the dispute and consequently the first respondent ought to have obtained permission as contemplated under Sec. 33 (2) (b) of the Act. It was also contended that in view of the fact that the first petitioner is a workman concerned in the said dispute the failure on the part of the management to obtain permission vitiates the order of dismissal. It was also contended that the first petitioner participated while sponsoring the dispute by the Union and consequently the Labour Court should have held that the petitioner is a workman concerned in the industrial dispute i. e. , in I. D. 78/78 which was then pending before the Labour Court.