CHHATIA WEAVING MILLS Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the employer has assailed the awards of the Industrial Tribunal in I. D. Misc. Case Nos. 6/86 and 16/86 declaring the termination of the services of opposite parties 3 to 7 as invalid declining to grant approval under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, "the Act") and declaring that the workmen would be deemed to be continuing in employment without interruption and entitled to wages and other service benefits.

(2.) ON allegation that the opposite parties 3 to 7 assaulted Shri Ramakanta Banu, Supervisor, while he was proceeding to report to duty, they were dismissed from service with effect from August 1, 1986. The workmen filed an application under Section 33a of the Act against the management for contravention of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act as the management had not sought approval from the Tribunal prior to the dismissal. The application was registered as I. D. Misc. Case No. 6 of 1986. An application filed by the management under Section 33 (2) (b) was registered I. D. Misc. Case No. 16 of 1986. The workmen had alleged that the punishment of dismissal had been imposed without a disciplinary proceeding, whereas the management pleaded that there was no infirmity in the termination of the services of the opposite parties 3 to 7. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated and at the said enquiry, the workmen had failed to establish their innocence and there was no infraction of the principles of natural justice. The management further pleaded that it would substantiate its action "through documentary and oral evidence at the time of hearing" and sought the dismissal of the application filed by the workmen both on the preliminary ground as well as on merits.

(3.) THE application filed by the management and that filed by the workmen were clubbed together at the request of the parties for analogous hearing and disposal. At the hearing, the management examined one witness and the workmen examined three witnesses and documents were exhibited and award was passed, as stated above.