RAJ KISHORE (SUBSTITUTED Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. D.N. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.N. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.

(2.) AN order passed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is under challenge in this writ application.

(3.) A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 controverting the statements made in the writ application. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 submitted that the petitioner was dismissed on 30th September, 1989 and simultaneously an application was filed by the employer before the respondent No. 3 under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. Learned Counsel further submitted that before the order of dismissal was passed by the employer, so far as the petitioner is concerned, one month salary was already paid to him and, therefore, requirements of law, as envisaged under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act and its proviso have already been complied with. Learned Counsel further submitted that there was fair inquiry and the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to defend himself and, thus, principles of natural justice was follows.