K RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, have filed this writ application seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash an order passed by the industrial Tribunal,Madras .

(2.) THIS Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also for the second respondent. Affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused and the counter affidavit of the second respondent also. All the materials placed before this Court, are scrutinised.

(3.) AT the outset, it has to be pointed out that there is no quarrel as to the factual position, as recorded above. It would be more advantageous to reproduce Sec. 33 (2) (b) of the industrial Disputes Act, as follows: "33. Conditions of service, etc. , to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendenc y of proceedings:- (1 ). . . . (2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance with the standing orders applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute or, where there are no such standing orders, in accordance with the terms of the contract, whether express or implied, between him and the workman:- (a ). . . . (b) fo r any misconduct not connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, that workman: Provided that no such workman shall be discharged or dismissed, unless he has been paid wages for one month and an application has been made by the employer to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer. "