TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANYLTD Vs. HIRANGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four application are dealt with In one Judgment as they arise out of one order passed by the presiding officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Patna, dated 23 October 1963.

(2.) Four workmen of the Tata Iron and Steel Company, namely, Hirangi, Bishwanath, Samrathi and Shanker, who were working as miners, were dismissed from service by the Assistant Chief Mining Engineer who held, after some sort of domestic enquiry, that they were guilty of robbing coal from the mines. Then an application was made for approval of the order of dismissal as required by Section 33 (2)(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The presiding officer, industrial tribunal, heard the matter as regards granting of approval. By his order dated 16 April 1963 (annexure A), he held that the domestic enquiry was conducted properly in accordance with the rules of natural justice and that the findings were wholly justified.

(3.) But he refused to grant approval solely on the ground that the order of dismissal was passed by the Assistant Chief Mining Engineer, whereas the standing orders required that the Chief Mining Engineer alone could validly dismiss workmen of that type. Hence, the approval asked for was refused. The effect of this order was that in the eyes of law the workmen would be deemed not to have been dismissed at all and they would continue to remain in service. Later on, on or about 9 July 1963, the Chief Mining Engineer informed the workmen concerned (annexure C) that he had carefully gone through the entire proceeding and that he was satisfied that the charges were proved against them and hence he dismissed them with effect from 16 July 1963. An application was filed before the same tribunal for approval of his action as required by Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The sole point In controversy before the said tribunal on the second occasion was whether the earlier order of the tribunal (annexure A) declining to approve the dismissal would operate as a bar to the employer filing a fresh application for approval in respect of the same act of misconduct. The learned tribunal, relying on Harbans Lai Arora v. Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway, Jhansi, and Ors. , held that a second petition for approval In respect of the same act of misconduct would not lie and that it was not open to the employer to resurrect an old proceeding and cure what was considered to be a technical defect. He observed that the proper course was to keep the workmen in service until a fresh case of misconduct was proved against them.