MANAGEMENT OF INSTRUMENTATION LIMITED Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Respondents.

(2.) This application is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.9.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 2002, whereby in a petition filed by the petitioner-Management of Instrumentation Limited under Sections 33 (2)(a)/(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act (herein after referred to as "the Act") making a proposal that in the pending reference case No. 1 of 2000, between the management and the workmen for their regularisation and their claim "demand of equal pay", the management took a decision to close the industry at Bokaro unit and proposed to terminate the 36 workmen, who have failed to go for voluntary retirement scheme by offering them one month's pay under Section 25-F of the Act, the learned Tribunal found that the petition is vague and stated that in the circumstances, provision of Sections 33 (2)(a) and 33 (2)(b) of the Act are not applicable, dismissed the application and refused to confirm the order of termination.

(3.) It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that his application was filed under Section 33 (2) (a) of the Act, since the proceeding with regard to the dispute of the workmen and the management for their regularisation and equal pay was pending and they proposed to close the industry and offered all the dues of the workmen, 36 in number, under Section 25F of the Act and filed the application before the proposed date of termination and as such, the application was within the provision of Section 33(2)(a) of the Act and the court without giving any finding that how it is not covered under Section 33(2)(a), gave a wrong finding that application was vague. The learned Counsel further submitted that as per Section 33 (2) (a) of the Act, when the Management wants to alter, in regard to any matter not connected with the dispute, the service condition applicable to that workman immediately before the commencement of such proceeding either in accordance with standing order applicable to the workman or as per terms of contract, then the application under Section 33 (2)(a) is maintainable. In the instant case, since the dispute with regard to the regularisation of service and equal pay demand was pending before the Industrial Tribunal and the workers were admittedly temporary and casual workers and as per the contract they were working as casual workers, hence the matter was not connected with their regularisation and their termination under the provision of Section 33(2)(a) of the Act was within the compass of the provisions and the labout Court wrongly rejected the application saying that it is vague. The provision of Section 33 (2) (a) and its proviso were fully complied, as the Management has given a notice as contained in Annexure-5 under Section 25F of the Act on 22.11.2002 with a Bank Draft offering their entire dues and since the same was not accepted, the same was filed in court along with the application under Section 33(2)(a)/(b) of the Act by the Management before the Industrial Tribunal. He has further submitted that the learned Industrial Tribunal failed to consider that even if the provision of law was wrongly written on the petition, the same cannot be dismissed because as per law, the court is supposed to look into the substance of the petition and not the quoting of wrong provision and in this connctiion, he has relied a judgment in the case of State of Karnataka v. Krishnaji Srinivas Kulkarni and Ors., 1994 2 SCC 558. Since the Tribunal saw the section and not the substance and came to a wrong finding that the application was vague, hence the impugned judgment is fit to be quashed being perverse.