VIDYA RATTAN SHARMA Vs. TRIBUNE TRUST AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The industrial disputes referred for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh by the appropriate Government under Sec. 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act") raised by the Union on pending unresolved disputes and differences with the management was registered as Reference No.46/2008. The main reference is still pending adjudication.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition arising out of an interlocutory order dated 12th March, 2015 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, UT, Chandigarh are that the management sought approval under the provisions of Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Act of action taken against the petitioner dismissing him from service on grounds of misconduct vide respondent-Management order dated 3rd June, 2009 (P-7). This order resulted from a charge-sheet dated 10th July, 2007 served on the delinquent workman. An inquiry was conducted on the charge of committing major misconduct in petitioner submitting 8 false bills towards Travelling Allowance without approval from the competent authority and by misrepresenting the facts that the journeys undertaken to collect news at different places had the approval of the Editor-in-Chief of the respondent-Tribune, a daily newspaper. The charges were proven at the inquiry. The Editor-in-Chief vide his order dated 3rd June, 2009 considered the inquiry report and accepted the findings of guilt. He examined the past record of the workman and awarded him the punishment of dismissal from service with immediate effect for committing gross misconduct covered under Clause II (C) of the Standing Orders applicable to the delinquent, being the competent disciplinary authority of the workman. However, since the Industrial Reference was pending, the Editor-in-Chief could not give effect to the order except by applying for approval of action taken by invoking provisions of Sec. 33(2) (b) of the Act. The dismissal could take effect only if approval was granted.

(3.) Consequently, an application under Sec. 33 (2) (b) of the Act was filed before the learned labour court which was contested by the workman. By an elaborate order, the learned labour court has granted approval of the dismissal order dated 3rd June, 2009 from which this petition arises. He prays that the findings are erroneous and the order is illegal and deserves to be set aside and he be reinstated to service.