SINDHU DIWAKAR DABHOLKAR Vs. B N DONGRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Simple but substantial law point that I am called upon to construe here is the proviso to Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) The petitioner was employed as a Punch Operator since February 1971 by the second respondent, M/s. Tata Consultancy Services, a Division of Tata Sons Ltd., Nariman Point, Bombay 400 021. She was charge-sheeted by a memo, dated 27th June, 1983 on the allegations that she remained absent without permission continuously from 31st March, 1983 to 12th June, 1983 which constituted a serious misconduct under Model Standing Orders 24(f) and 24(1). Subsequently, a departmental enquiry was held against her and by an order dated 18th August, 1983, her services were terminated on the basis of the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, holding her guilty of the misconduct alleged. On the same day, the Company filed an application before the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay (the first respondent) under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act for approval of the action taken by them against the petitioner as certain industrial disputes were pending before the said Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 111 of 1982. In that application, inter alia, it was averred by the Company that the petitioner had been paid one month's salary in accordance with the proviso to Section 33(2)(b).

(3.) The petitioner resisted the application, inter alia, contending that she was paid only Rs. 781/- which did not constitute her wages for one month as contemplated under the proviso to Section 33(2)(b).