TATA REFRACTORIES LIMITED Vs. NRUPAMANI PING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE six writ applications at the instance of the employer have been filed challenging the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 20th of August, 1988, and the said order of the Tribunal has been annexed as Anncsurc-1 to each of the writ applications.

(2.) OPPOSITE party No. 1 in each of the writ applications filed an application before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the "act") impugning the order of termination passed by the employer in contravention of Section 33 of the Act. It is not necessary for us to state facts in detail and it is an admitted fact that the order of termination of opposite party No. 1 in each of the cases was passed by the employer while Industrial Dispute Case No. 56 of 1986 was pending before the Industrial Tribunal. The workman made the allegation in the application under Section 33-A that the Employer terminated the service in contravention of Section 33 of the Act. The Employer-petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and filed objection, which has been annexed as Annexure-5. One of the stands in the objection is that the services of the opposite party-workman had not been terminated for any misconduct, but it is a case of loss of confidence and, therefore, Sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Act cannot be attracted in any manner. Before the Tribunal, on Employer's prayer, the question of maintainability of the application was taken up as a preliminary issue. The same having been decided against the Employer-petitioner by order dated 20-8-1988, the Employer has approached this Court. Since the fact as well as the question of law involved is one and the same, these applications are taken up together.

(3.) THE only contention raised by Mr. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the termination in question is not for any misconduct connected with the dispute, nor a punishment so as to attract Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act and actually, the Employer having lost confidence in the employee has passed the order of termination which is permissible under the industrial law. It is thus contended that there being no contravention of Section 33 of the Act, Section 33-A has no application and, therefore, the tribunal will have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in question. Mr. Patnaik, the learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 1, on the other hand contends that the order itself clearly demonstrates that the termination is on account of the misconduct of the employee and since such a termination has been made during the subsistence of the industrial dispute, there has been a contravention of Section 33 of the Act and, therefore, the Tribunal was fully justified in holding the petition maintainable.