KHANDELWAL GLASS WORKS Vs. S C PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the pendency of an adjudication of an industrial dispute in Reference No. 12 of 1964 before the Industrial Tribunal, Patna, Messrs. Khandelwal Glass Works, Ambona, District Dhanbad, the petitioners in these two writ applications, dismissed two of their workmen, one Shri R. D. Sharma, respondent No. 2 in C.W.J.C. No. 1014 of 1965, and the other Shri Phool Singh, respondent No. 2 in C.W.J.C. No 1020 of 1966, in exercise of its power under Section 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), hereinafter called the Act R.D. Sharma was dismissed by an order of the petitioners made on the 26th October, 1964, after holding a proper domestic enquiry, with effect from the 27th October, 1964. On the same day, an application was sent to the Industrial Tribunal by Registered post under the proviso to Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Act for approval of the action taken by the employer. Contained in the order of dismissal, communicated to respondent No. 2 in C.W.J.C. No 1014 were the following words to tender wages for one month in fulfilment of the other condition of the proviso:--

(2.) The order of dismissal against the other workman, Phool Singh, was made on the 23rd December. 1964, and we are informed that the said order was to take effect from the 24th December, 1964, and the date mentioned in the decision of the Tribunal as being the 11th November. 1964, is a mistake. In regard to him also, on the same date, an application was sent by post to the Industrial Tribunal, Patna, under the same proviso to Clause (b) of sub Section (2) of Section 33 of the Act. To him also the tender of one month's wages was made out in a different language The relevant words in his case are:-- "You are also directed to collect all your legal dues on 26-12-1964 during the working hours of the office after submitting a dues clearance certificate from all the concerned in-charges." This workman also filed an application under Section 33A of the Act seeking the reliefs stated in his application.

(3.) The two applications filed by the employer under the proviso to Section 33(2) (b) against R.D. Sharma and Phool Singh were respectively numbered as Miscellaneous Case No. 31 of 1964 and Miscellaneous Case No. 38 of 1964. The two applications filed by the said two workmen under Section 33A were respectively numbered as Miscellaneous Case No, 31A of 1964 and Miscellaneous Case No. 39 of of 1964. All these four cases were heard together by Shri Shib Chandra Prasad. Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Patna. He has disposed of the four cases by a common judgment and order, calling it an award. He has held in relation to the cases of both the employees that the orders of dismissal are justified as they were made after a proper domestic enquiry In regard to the case of R.D. Sharma, however, he has held that neither of the two mandatory requirements of the proviso in question was fulfilled by the employer. Hence, the approval could not be accorded In regard to the case of Phool Singh, however, the learned Presiding Officer has said that the requirement for making the application for approval of the order of dismissal had been fulfilled but the other requirement of payment of wages for one month had not been fulfilled. In that view of the matter, the approval to the order of dismissal in his case also has been withheld by dismissing the application of the employer made under Section 83(2)(b) of the Act. In regard to the applications of the workmen concerned made under Section 33A of the Act, he has merely said that the two miscellaneous cases under Section 33A are allowed. He has not indicated in what respect they are allowed, what is awarded, whether he has directed their reinstatement, if so, with what amount of back wages and the like.