TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS Vs. DILIP P PANDIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.

(2.) THE petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 24. 3. 2003, passed by the Industrial Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has allowed the application for subsistence allowance pending the hearing and final disposal of the approval application by the petitioners and which is pending for disposal before the Industrial Tribunal.

(3.) PLACING reliance upon an unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Air India Limited v. Mr. Libio Francisco Colaco and another, along with other appeals and writ petitions, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that it has been clearly held by the Division Bench that in cases where domestic inquiry is held to be either defective or there was only a facade of an inquiry or there was no inquiry at all, only on such finding being arrived at, the Industrial tribunal is entitled to direct the payment of subsistence allowance during the pendency of the application for approval under section 33 (2) (b) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called as "the said Act", otherwise there can be no justification for ordering payment of subsistence allowance to the -workman during, the pendency of such proceedings for approval. The Tribunal having totally ignored this aspect and the order having been passed without ascertaining as to whether the inquiry was defective in any manner, the Tribunal could not have directed the payment of the subsistence allowance to the respondent (No. 1]. It is further submitted that the reference filed during the pendency of the approval application has already been disposed of. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the respondent, while submitting that in view of the law being settled by the decision of the Division Bench the matter will have to be remanded to the Industrial Tribunal for necessary order in accordance with the said decision of the Division Bench, argued that the proceedings cannot be disposed of merely because of disposal of the main reference, bearing in mind the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. S. N. Modak,.