DEPOT MANAGER Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions arise out of an industrial dispute. The petitioner is the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Secunderabad Depot. The workers belonging to that depot went on a day's strike on 28th March, 1966. Consequently, there was a dispute whether wages for that day should be paid to them or not. It was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad and numbered as Industrial Dispute No. 54 of 1964. Pending that enquiry, on 12-12-1966 the second respondent in the writ petitions, who was a conductor in one of the buses belonging to the petitioner was charged with misconduct of not issuing tickets to five lady passengers and of not collecting fares from them. He was further charged that he had failed to observe completion of the record relating to the ticket issue at Court House Bus Stop. A domestic enquiry was held into these charges on 4-1-1967 and 12-1-1967. The enquiry officer found the second respondent to be guilty of the two charges and removed him from service by order dated 27th March. Thereupon, the second respondent filed M.P. No. 29 of 1967 under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) for determination of the benefits available to him under the circumstances. He also complained in the application that the management did not obtain the previous sanction of the Tribunal, before removing him from service, as required under the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner not only filed a counter to this petition, but also filed an application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act, in M.P. No. 59 of 1967, for approval of the removal of the second respondent from service. These two applications were heard together by the Industrial Tribunal. By its order dated 5th October, 1967 the Tribunal rejected the petitioner's application in M.P. No. 59 of 1967 and granted the second respondent's application M. P. No. 29 of 1967 and directed that the second respondent be restored to his employment, with retrospective effect, with back wages and with such attendant benefits as the petitioner would be entitled to. It is to quash this order in the two petitions, the present writ petitions have been filed. While W.P. No. 3259 of 1967 is directed against the order in M.P. No. 29 of 1967, W.P. No. 2801 of 1967 is against the order in M.P. No. 59 of 1967.

(2.) Sri Balamukunda Reddy appearing for the petitioners raised the following points before me. (1) When an application is made before the Industrial Tribunal under the proviso to Section 33 (2) (b), it is the duty of the Tribunal to accord its approval, if it is satisfied with the domestic enquiry. It is not, however, open to the Industrial Tribunal to sit as an appellate authority, to assess the evidence once again and to give a different conclusion. (2) If the Industrial Tribunal comes to the conclusion that there was no enquiry at all or that the enquiry was not satisfactory and not in accordance with the principles of natural justice, it is the duty of the Tribunal to give an opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence before it and come to a conclusion by itself on its basis or in the alternative to remit the matter back to the domestic tribunal.

(3.) If the Industrial Tribunal comes to the conclusion that Section 33 of the Act was contravened, it should decide the dispute on taking the evidence by itself. It is obvious that the third and second points are practically to the same effect, and it is therefore, necessary that the third point should be separately considered.