DESH RAJ GUPTA Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL IV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was in the employment of the Rampur Zila Sahkari Bank Limited, Rampur (hereinafter referred to as the employer) as an Assistant Cashier. He was a workman for the purposes of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A reference of an industrial dispute between a number of District Co-operative Banks including the employer was made under S. 4 K of the Act. The dispute related to the service conditions of the employees of the Banks. The employer, during the pendency of the dispute before the Tribunal in disciplinary proceedings unconnected with the dispute, passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service. This was done without paying wages for one month and without making an application to the Tribunal for obtaining its approval of the action taken by the employer against the petitioner as required by the provisions of the proviso to S. 6-E(2)(b) of the Act. The petitioner made a complaint purporting to be under S. 6-F of the Act to the Tribunal. On Feb. 23,1979, the Tribunal took the view that the inquiry held againt the petitioner was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It directed the employer to justify before it the punishment awarded to the petitioner. On July 28, 1980, the Tribunal dismissed the application made by the petitioner under S. 6-F of the Act. In this petition the two orders passed by the Tribunal are being impugned.

(2.) The provisions contained in S. 6-E of the Act are in the pari materia with those of S. 33 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In S. 6-E of the Act the general right of an employer to take action against the employee has been restricted. In fact a ban has been imposed upon the right of the employer. However, the ban is not an absolute one and it may be lifted. In cases covered by the provisions of S. 6-E (1) of the Act no action as enumerated in Cls. (a) and (b) can be taken by the employer unless an express permission in writing has been obtained by it from the authorities mentioned in sub-s. (1) of that provision. In cases covered by sub-clause (a) of S. 6-E (2) of the Act the employer can straightway take action against the employee, the only limitation being that the action of the employer should be in accordance with the Standing Orders applicable to a particular employee. For cases covered by cl. (b) of sub-s. (2) of S. 6-E there are three requirements :

(3.) It will thus be seen that the limitation on the power of the employer is not so vigorous in S. 6-E (2) as it is in S. 6-E (l) of the Act.