MUZAFFARPUR ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO Vs. S K DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Muzaffarpur Electric Supply Co., Ltd. filed an application under the proviso to Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Central Act 14 of 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Patna, for according approval of the dismissal order passed by the management against respondent No. 2 on the 11th April, 1968. This application was put up for hearing by the Deputy Labour Commissioner in his camp at Muzaffarpur on 21st September, 1968. On that date the management filed an application, a copy of which is annexure 7 to this writ application, praying to stay the hearing of this case on the ground that in accordance with standing order No. 25, which is applicable to the petitioner company, respondent No. 2 had filed an appeal on 29th April, 1968, before the Labour Commissioner. THE Deputy Labour Commissioner did not allow this application and proceeded to hear the case. Upon this, as it appears, no opportunity was asked on behalf of the management to adjourn the case for adducing evidence. Some documents on behalf of the management had been filed earlier. THE workman concerned, namely, respondent No. 2, examined himself. Arguments were heard on 19th October, 1968. THE Deputy Labour Commissioner passed his order on 7th May, 1969, a copy of which is annexure 9 to this writ application, refusing to accord his approval to the order of dismissal. THE company has obtained a rule against the respondents from this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of tae Constitution of India to show cause why the said order be not called up and quashed.

(2.) IN support of this writ application learned Counsel for the petitioner made two submissions(i) that no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce its evidence in support of his application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. and (ii) that the order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner (respondent No. 1) is erroneous in law on toe face of it even on the materials placed by the parties before him.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner then drew our attention to a petition filed of 19th October, 1968, before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, a copy of which is annexure 10 to this writ petition. After having seen the statement made in the counter-affidavit and the affidavit in reply in that regard we accept the case of the petitioner that such an application was filed although respondent No. 2 does not admit it. We, at one stage of the hearing of this case, felt inclined to take the view that on 19th October, 1968, when arguments were being heard, the Deputy Labour Commissioner ought to have given an opportunity to the management to put in the documents which it proposed to put on that date in reply to the argument put forward on behalf of respondent No. 2. But, on examining the matter further, as pointed out by learned Counsel for respondent No. 2, we do not feel inclined to adopt this course.