THE MANAGER, PANITOLA TEA ESTATE BELONGING TO JOKAI ASSAM TEA CO. LTD. Vs. THE CONCILIATION OFFICER (LABOUR INSPECTOR) AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY an order dated 27th December 1963 an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') for approval of the order of dismissal passed by the Petitioner against Shri Samlall Kahara, a work man was refused by the Conciliation Officer (Labour Inspector), Tinsukia. Against this order the present petition has been filed by the Management of Panitola Tea Estate. On 13 -1 -1962 one Ghanashyam Das, a workman in the Petitioner Tea Estate was dismissed. Conciliation proceedings started on the dismissal of Ghanashyam Das on the 13th June 1963. On the 13th September 1963 a tentative settlement was made under which Ghanashyam Das was reinstated on 10 -10 -1903. On the 30th October 1963 the memorandum of settlement was filed before the Conciliation Officer. In the meantime on the 18th September 1963 Samlall Kahara opposite party No. 2 to this petition who was a workman of Panitola Tea Estate, was dismissed on account of misconduct. An application was made for approval of the aforesaid order which was dismissed by the Conciliation Officer on the 27th December 1963. The order of the Conciliation Officer is impugned in this petition on various grounds.

(2.) THE Petitioner contends firstly that as the Panatela Tea Estate is not a utility concern, Section 33(2) of the Act will not be applicable. Section 33(2) of the Act, according to the Petitioner, applies only to the cases of utility concerns. Secondly it is urged that as by 27 -12 -1963 the conciliation proceedings were terminated, the Conciliation Officer became functus officio and had no power to approve or disapprove the order of dismissal passed by the Management. The order of the Conciliation Officer dated the 27th December 1963 is without jurisdiction. Thirdly it is urged that Samlall Kahara is not a workman concerned in the Conciliation proceedings pending on the dismissal of Ghanashyam Das and other workmen and thus Section 33(2) will not apply. Lastly it is urged that on the merit the order is erroneous inasmuch as the Conciliation Officer had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute. He had only to find out if there was a prima facie case for dismissal established or not.

(3.) AS we are not inclined to accept the contention of the Petitioner that Section 33(2) is not attracted to a non -utility concern and further that no application was required under Section 33(2) on the ground that Sri Samlall Kahara was not the workman concerned, it is not necessary to deal with the preliminary point raised by the opposite parties that these points cannot be allowed to be urged, as they were not taken before the Conciliation Officer.