AIRPLAST PVT LTD Vs. D N GAWADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two cross petitions are directed against the order of the Industrial Tribunal passed under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1942 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), rejecting the application for approval of the dismissal of the workman. The employer has filed writ petition No. 853 of 1983 against the impugned order because the approval application was rejected on the ground of short payment of notice pay whereas the employee has filed writ petition No. 2735 of 1983 against the finding recorded by the Tribunal that he was aware of the ex-parte inquiry held by the employer on December 14,1979.

(2.) The relevant facts leading to both the petitions are as follows:- The workman, according to him, was a member of the internal factory committee before a Union named the Janata Mazdoor Union came into existence in the company's establishment. After the Union came into existence, the workman joined it w.e.f. January 1,1978. It appears, that in the meanwhile, the Union had raised s an industrial dispute being Reference (IT) No. 1 of 1978 which was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Thane. On August 7, 1979 the workman attended the Tribunal for giving his oral evidence, However, no evidence could be recorded on that day as the Member of the Tribunal did not take seat on that day. One Shri Tiwari, Production-in-charge of the Company, was present in the Court and he asked the workman as to why he had come to the Tribunal. The workman was a drilling machine-operator and each machine operator was provided with helpers for bringing and taking out material. However on and from August 9, 1979, the Company stopped providing helpers to the machine operators including the petitioner. On August 14, 1979, the workman informed the Manager of the Company that he was denied the assistance of helper with the effect that the drilling machine was stopped, and asked the Manager to do the needful in the matter. According to the workman, instead of providing him with a helper, he was served with a charge-sheet on August 20, 1979, charging him with acts of misconduct, namely, wilful refusal and disobedience of the order of the superiors and refusal to do the work from August 9, 1979. The workman was also suspended with effect from August 20 1979. The workman submitted his written explanation on August 22, 1979. According to the workman, after he submitted his written explanation, he heard nothing from the Company although the Company had his residential address with them. It, however, appears that on December 5, 1979, a letter was addfessed by the Company to him at the address of the Janata Mazdoor Union which was received by him only 15 days after it was : received by the Union. It appears that in this letter, the date of inquiry communicated to the workman was December 10, 1979. Since the workman had not received the said letter prior to that date, he did not attend the inquiry. It further appears that according to the Company, thereafter the inquiry was held ex-parte on December 14,19/9 and by the order of January 29, 1980 the workman was informed that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were accepted and the Company had decided to dismiss him with immediate effect.

(3.) The Company thereafter made an application to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act being Application (IT) No. 11 of 1980 in the pending Reference. (IT) No. 1 of 1978 praying that the action taken by it to dismiss the workman be approved. This application was contested by the workman. Trie Company filed documents and adduced oral evidence of the Inquiry Officer. The workman examined himself and his sister to show that no communication was received by him of the inquiry. The Industrial Tribunal thereafter passed the impugned order dismissing the Company's application on the ground that the payment or one month's wages tendered to the workman at the time of his dismissal was short by Rs. 125.35p., and therefore, the provisions of Section 33 (2)(b) were not complied with. The Tribunal at the same time however recorded its finding that the inquiry held on December 14, 1979, was not without notice to the workman. It is for this reason that both the workman and the Company have preferred the present cross-petitions.