OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the award, of the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, published in the Punjab Government Gazette, dated August 3, 1973 and directing respondent No. 2 to decide the case in accordance with law.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the case of the petitioner is that he is the President of the Cinema Employees Union (Regd.), Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, and was an employee of respondent No. 3. It is alleged that the workmen employed in the establishment of respondent No. 3 had raised demands with respect to gratuity scheme, uniforms, et cetera, and due to non-acceptance of the demands by the management, an industrial dispute had arisen which was referred by the State Government for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). It is further averred that the petitioner was a concerned workman in that industrial dispute. The Industrial dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal and at the relevant time the reference was pending.

(3.) IT is further averred that on account of the activities of the petitioner as President of the Union he became an eye-sore to the Government and they concocted false case at the instance of Mr. Naik Ram against him that he was indulging in selling cinema tickets in black market. Consequently, the management gave a charge-sheet to him and appointed Mr. K. K. Gulati, as an Enquiry Officer, who found him guilty of the charges. It is next stated that the enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice and was a farce. In view of the enquiry report, he was dismissed by the Managing Director of respondent No. 3 without complying with the provisions of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act as neither one month's notice nor salary in lieu thereof was given to him nor approval had been obtained by the employer from the Tribunal. He filed a complaint under Section 33a before the Tribunal requesting for setting aside the order of his dismissal passed by the employer which was dismissed without going into the question of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 33 (2) (b) read with Section 11a of the Act. The petitioner has challenged the award of the Tribunal, inter cilia, on the ground that it has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in not considering the case in the light of Section 11a. The writ petition has been contested by the employer who, inter alia, stated that the impugned award was legal and valid.