PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD Vs. RAMCHANDRA BHIMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. Respondent No. 1 was employed by the petitioner as a fitter in its repair workshop. There was a dispute between the company and its workmen in regard to bonus for 1956-57. This was referred for adjudication to the second Respondent under section 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the first respondent was dismissed by the petitioner on 10th October 1958. The charge against him was that he had thrown stones at the staff Manager's car on 5th May 1958. On 19th November 1958 the petitioner made an application to the second Respondent for granting its approval to the action taken by it under Section 33(2) of the Act. The Tribunal took the view that the application should have been made before the first respondent was dismissed. As the application was made after the order of dismissal ad been passed, the Tribunal refused to grant its approval to the action taken by the petitioner against the first respondent and rejected the application made by the petitioner. This order made by the Tribunal is being challenged before us in the present petition.

(2.) Mr. Narayanswami, who appearrs on behalf of the petitioner, has urged that the view taken by the Industrial Tribunal that the petitioner should have made an application to the Tribunal before the order of dismissal was passed, is erroneous, in order to decide this question it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 33 of the Act was in the following terms before it was amended in 1956:

(3.) The new Section 33, which was in force at the material time, draws a distinction between matters and misconduct connected with the pending industrial dispute and matters and misconduct which are not so connected. If the employer wishes to make any alternation in regard to any matter connected with the dispute or if he wishes to punish any workman for any misconduct connected with the dispute, then he cannot do so, unless he has first obtained the permission of the authority before which the dispute is pending. No change or law has, therefore, been made in this respect, Sub-Section (2) permits an employer to alter the conditions of service in regard to any matter not connected with the dispute or to punish a workman for any misconduct not connected with the dispute. The right given to the employer is, however made subject to certain safeguards provided in the interest of t he workmen. These safeguards are dismissed, unless two conditions have been complied with. These conditions are that the employer should pay to the employee concerned wages for one month and that he should make an application to the authority, before which the industrial dispute is pending, for its "approval of the action taken" by him.