BRIGURAM ROY Vs. SEVENTH INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point raised in this writ petition is whether a Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Tribunal Act can refuse to proceed with the reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that a Special Leave Petition has been admitted in connection with the reference by the Supreme Court.

(2.) The facts which are relevant for the purpose of answering this question are as follows :- The petitioner is a workman employed by the respondent no. 3. During the pendency of an industrial dispute before the Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the first dispute) the respondent no. 3 sought to dismiss the petitioner and did in fact so dismiss him. The respondent no. 3 accordingly applied for the approval of the Tribunal before which the first dispute was pending for approval of the action of dismissal of the petitioner under section 33(2)(6) of the Act.

(3.) Subsequently the petitioner raised a fresh industrial dispute (hereinafter referred to as the second dispute). The second dispute was referred under Section 10 to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the propriety of the petitioner's dismissal from Service. A preliminary point was taken by the respondent authority before the Tribunal in the Second Dispute that the question of the propriety of the dismissal had already been gone into and decided in favour of the management at the time the approval was granted under section 33(2)(b) in connection with the first dispute. The Tribunal negatived this contention and held that the scope of enquiry under section 33,(2)(b) was distinct from the scope of the enquiry under section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.