M. KUMARSWAMI MUDALIAR, PROPRIETOR, SRI BALAVINAYAGAR MOTOR SERVICE Vs. N. PONNUSWAMI, DRIVER, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MOTOR WORKERS UNION AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent was a driver in the petitioner's motor service. In pursuance of a domestic enquiry held by the petitioner, he was discharged from service. On 24th August, 1965, the Government referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, a dispute between the union to which the first respondent belonged and the petitioner. The order of discharge passed by the petitioner against the first respondent was sent by post on 24th August, and received by him on the 27th. The petitioner's contention before the Labour Court that he sent the, order by post on the 21st was not accepted by the Labour Court, and the matter will have to precede on the basis that the order of discharge of the first respondent was passed while an industrial dispute was pending before the Labour Court and this is the view which the Labour Court has taken.

(2.) THE Labour Court, however, has proceeded on the basis that because the discharge of the first respondent was during the pendency of an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, the order of discharge is automatically bad and liable to be set aside. This view clearly is not correct. In Punjab National Bank v. All India Punjab National Bank Employees' Federation : (1959)IILLJ666SC , the Supreme Court observed at page 172 as follows:

(3.) IN a later decision Delhi Cotton & General Mills v. Rameshwar : (1960)IILLJ712SC , the Supreme "Court held: