MANAGER TEOK TEA ESTATE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 29.1.96 passed in Civil Rule No. 766/90 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner appellant, challenging the award given by the Labour Court, Respondent No. 1 and ordering reinstatement of the workman Respondent No. 2 in service.

(2.) The short question which calls for answer is, as to whether during the period of non-publication of the Labour Court's award under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, though the award has been written, signed and submitted, it would amount to 'pendency of the 'proceedings' before the Labour Court or not for the purposes of Sections 33 and 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to The Respondent No.2 the order dispensing with his services was passed on August 20, 1986 during the pendency of the proceedings in Misc Case No. 3/85.

(3.) Only with a view to clarify the facts, it may be indicated that initially it was the case of the respondent No.2 that order of dismissal was bad as it was passed during pendency of the proceedings in Misc. Case No. 2/86 also which was finally decided in theyear 1988. However, there is no dispute before us now, that respondent No.2 was in no way connected with the proceedings i.e. Misc. Case No. 2/ 86. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 has very fairly made that statement before us.