I D L CHEMICALS LIMITED Vs. SHAIKH YOUSUF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is preferred by the Management against an interlocutory order of the Industrial Tribunal. The 1st respondent is an employee of the petitioner. An enquiry was held in respect of certain charges levelled against him. But instead of dismissing him, an order of termination simpliciter was passed. Having passed the order the management applied to the Industrial Tribunal for approval under S. 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act. This petition was numbered as M.P. No. 52 of 1979 in I.D. No. 32 of 1978 already pending before the Tribunal. Having filed a petition under S. 33(2)(b) the management contended that it was really not necessary for it to so apply. The Industrial Tribunal, however, held that such an application was necessary and has been rightly made. At that stage the 1st respondent raised a contention that the authority, which passed the order of termination is not competent to do so according to the relevant standing orders and that, therefore, the order is incompetent and invalid. The management contended that the 1st respondent should not be allowed to raise the said plea at this stage and that this aspect cannot be gone into in a proceeding under S. 33(2)(b) of the Act. The Industrial Tribunal has held following the decision of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India v. Labour Court of Bakora Steel City [1980-II L.L.J. 456], that it can go into this question as well. Hence this writ petition.

(2.) Mr. A. Krishna Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that having regard to the object and purpose of S. 33 of the Act, which is only to see that no victimisation is done to an employee pending the conciliation proceeding or pending the determination of an industrial dispute the only question that has to be gone into in such a proceeding is whether the domestic enquiry has been properly held and whether there is no victimisation. No other question the counsel contended, can be gone into in these proceedings. He relied upon certain decisions, to which a brief reference would be in order.

(3.) The first decision cited by the learned counsel is Deccan Sugar and Abkari Company Limited v. Puppala Chinna Venkanna [1971] A.P. (S.N.) 124], a decision of learned single Judge of this court. I have sent for the full judgment. The following passage is relevant and is also relied upon by counsel.