HOTEL MANSINGH Vs. JUDGE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point involved in the present case is whether in the cases where approval as required under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, such approval having not been granted by the appropriate Industrial Tribunal/labour Court to the proposed punishment of removal of workman by the employer and such order of the Labour Court if so challenged in the High Court and stay is granted, but admittedly, workman concerned remains out of employment, despite the fact that the application for removing him from service having not been approved by the Labour Court, in such situation whether the employer is liable to pay to the non-petitioner workman in the terms as provided under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) IN the present case, the dismissal order was passed by the petitioner on July 3, 1992 vide Annexure-2 and the application was moved to the Industrial Tribunal for approving the same as was required under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act. After going through the various aspects on the application of the approval, the Industrial Tribunal ultimately by its order, dated October 6, 1996, had rejected the application of approval. Had the application been approved, there was no difficulty for the present petitioner and the non-petitioner would have been removed from service, but non-approval of the application, definitely results in that the workman still remains on the rolls of the management till removed legally.

(3.) SAID order of the Industrial Tribunal, dated 26 (sic) October 6, 1996 has been challenged in this Court in the present writ petition.