N PARTHASARATHY Vs. BLUE STAR LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WORKMAN of Blue Star Ltd. , is the appellant. By order in W. P. No. 14421/1997, dated August 24, 2006, the Writ Court has set aside the order of the Industrial Tribunal, madras, passed in Approval Petition No. 61/1991, dated February 24, 1997 and remitted the matter to the Tribunal, giving liberty to the parties to produce documentary evidence to prove all the allegations, including the issue of protected workman. The correctness of the same is put in issue. For the sake of brevity, industrial Disputes Act shall be Referred to as "the Act" and the Tamil Nadu Industrial dispute Rules, 1958 as "the Rules. "

(2.) FACTS leading to the Appeal are as follows: the appellant was a Mechanic in the first respondent establishment. For certain acts of misconduct said to have committed by him on march 20, 1989 and February 22, 1990 respectively, two charge memos, dated March 23, 1989 and March 26, 1990 were issued to him. As the explanation was not satisfactory, two domestic enquiries in respect of the charges were held. With reference to a charge Memo, dated March 23, 1989, evidence was let in on the side pf the Management. On the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, a second show-cause notice, dated January 21, 1991 was issued to the appellant. After considering the explanation, dated May 9, 1991, he was dismissed from service. At the time of dismissal of the appellant from service, I. D. No. 83/1990 was pending before the Tribunal and therefore, the first respondent-Management filed approval Petition No. 61/1991, under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and sought for approval of dismissal.

(3.) OPPOSING the said petition, the appellant had contended inter alia that he was an Office bearer of the Trade Union and one of the protected workmen for the year 1990-91. It was the further contention that the Management had failed to get prior permission under Section 33 (3) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before dismissing him from service and therefore, the Approval Petition is not maintainable. The appellant had further submitted that on June 26, 1990, the Trade union sent a list of Office bearers to be recognised as "protected workmen" and his name was also included in the said list. It was also the contention of the appellant that out of five Management Witnesses mentioned in the charge Memo, dated March 23, 1989, his request for examination of Mr. Gulwadi and mr. Sankaran, Management Witnesses, was erroneously rejected by the Enquiry Officer. Since the Enquiry Officer had denied an opportunity to cross-examine the Management witnesses, he made a representation dated April 17, 1990, for change of Enquiry Officer. When the same was pending consideration with the management, the Enquiry Officer closed the domestic enquiry on April 20, 1990 without giving any reasonable opportunity. In these circumstances, the appellant has submitted that the Approval Petition is not maintainable on facts and law and hence, prayed for dismissal of the approval petition.