RAMBABU SAXENA Vs. TILAM SANGH RAJASTHAN KOTA PROJECT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a domestic enquiry held by respondent employer the appellant workman was dismissed from service. Order of dismissal was sent for approval to the Industrial Tribunal under the proviso to Section 33 (2) (b) of Industrial disputes Act, 1947. However during the pendency of proceedings, the employer was declared as a 'relief Undertaking' and proceedings under Section 33 (2) (b) were put in abeyance indefinitely. Since the workman was rendered remediless, he approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated September 10, 1997 observing that during the pendency of proceedings under section 33 (2) (b) the writ petition was not maintainable. Hence this appeal.

(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that the appellant (for short 'workman') was working as etpo Operator at Kota Project of Tilam Sangh, rajasthan (for short the 'employer' ). The workman who was the President of the Project karmachari Union was served with a charge sheet on July 20, 1993. The workman denied all the charges. Sanjeev Jain, advocate, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the domestic Enquiry. Enquiry Report was submitted on June 23, 1994 and dismissal order against workman was passed on July 6, 1994. Pursuant to proviso to Section 33 (2) (b) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'id act') the dismissal order was sent to Industrial tribunal Kota for approval. However during the pendency of proceedings under Section 33 (2) (b) of the ID Act the State Government issued notification on February 13, 1995 under the provisions of the Rajasthan Relief undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1961 (for short 1961 Act') declaring the employer to be a 'relief Undertaking' and exempted it from the provisions of ID Act. The effect of the notification was that the proceedings under section 33 (2) (b) pending before Industrial tribunal Kota were suspended indefinitely. Since the workman was rendered remediless, he filed writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge vide order dated september 10, 1997 with these observations:

(3.) WE have heard rival submissions and scanned the material on record.