V JOHN Vs. SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the workman-Respondent in the writ petition against the order of the learned single Judge under which he has made the order of stay of all proceedings in pursuance of an order under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act'). Appellant-workman, V. John, is employed as Tripman with the writ petitioner-Respondent company. He has been subjected to an enquiry for the alleged violation of the respondent-Company's Standing Order No. 16(1), 16(2) and 16(6). He has, however, been found guilty of the charges levelled against him and ordered to be dismissed with effect from 22/09/1993. Since, however, the above action is sought to be taken against the workman and as there are proceedings pending as contemplated under Section 33(1) of the Act, the respondent-Company invoked sub-section (2)(b) thereof and sought approval of its action by the competent authority. Industrial Tribunal has, however, in the proceeding under Section 33(2) (b)of the Act rejected the application for approval of the order of punishment. Respondent-company has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Pending the writ petition, in Miscellaneous Petition No. 1685 of 1995 the Court has stayed all further proceedings in pursuance of the said order of the Labour Court.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. G. Vidyasagar, has questioned the legality of the above order on more than one ground and has contended that the impugned order has the effect of implementing the order passed by the respondent-Company to remove the appellant-workman from service which order could not/cannot be implemented unless approved by the competent authority. He has submitted that there is no further proceeding after the order of the Labour Court Industrial Tribunal except the consequence that the order removing the appellant has to be kept in abeyance and contract of service of the appellant is not interfered with by the respondent-Company. Learned Counsel has further submitted that in 10 case this Court has found that action to remove the appellant from service should be allowed to be implemented pending disposal of the writ petition, it should have taken notice of Section 17-B of the Act and directed the respondent- 15 Company to pay to the appellant emoluments as contemplated therein.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondent-Company, Mr. Ramesh Ranganathan, with his 20 usual vehemence and alertness, however, has contested the above contentions and submitted that by entertaining the writ petition this Court has, prima-facie, accepted that the Labour Court Industrial Tribunal, on the facts of the case, has erred in not approving the action of the management and has rightly stayed further proceedings, which in no case, however, is one for either reinstatement of the appellant-workman or for his continuance in service in the sense of keeping the contract of service alive and the appellant accordingly entitled to the benefits thereof.