KANAN DEVAN HILLS PRODUCE CO Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
KANAN DEVAN HILLS PRODUCE CO.LTD.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)IN those writ appeals the questions involved are the same and the decision in one will cover the other too therefore, we would state the facts in one of the appeals only
(2.)W. A. No. 126 of 1962 arises out of an order dated 12th July 1961 passed by the industrial tribunal, Eramkulam, in M. P. No. 77 of 1961. There was an industrial dispute between the management of the appellant-company and their workers and that dispute was registered as I. D. No. 68 of 1959 Pending that dispute the appellant company took disciplinary action against the 2nd respondent and she was dismissed from service on 7th May 1960. On (sic) May the appellants applied under the proviso to Section 33 (2) (B) of the Industrial Disputes Act for approval of their action and that application was M. P. No. 88 of 1960. Pending that appilcation the award in I. D. No. 68 of 1959 was passed by the Tribunal, which was published in me Gazette on 12th July 1960, and it became enforceable on the expiry at 30 days thereafter, i. e. , on 12th August. In the meantime, the 2nd respondent filed a complaint wider Section 33-A of the act on 20th October 1960 against the disciplinary action taken against her by the appellants and that dispute was registered as I. D. No. 42 of 1960 Ultimetly, the 2nd respondent filed an application on 23rd May 1951 seeking permission to withdraw I. D. No. 42 of 1960 and that petition was allowed by the Tribunal on the next day without notice to the appellants, that award was published in the Gazette on 20th June 1961 and there after the appellants filed M. P. No. 77 of 1961 in M. P. No. 88 of 1960 on 22nd June 1961 questioning the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to proceed further with their application for approval under the proviso to Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act. That application was dismissed by the Tribunal and against that the appellants filed a writ petition before this Court, which was also dismissed by valulaungam. the appeal is directed against that order.
(3.)TWO objections appear to nave been raised before our learned brother and the same are reiterated before us we would straigntaway dispose of one of them, namely, that the withdrawal of I. D. No. 42 of 1960 by the 2nd respondent amounts to an acceptance of the disciplinary action taken by the appellants, in other words, the contention is that it a proceeding, which is treated as an industrial dispute and in which larger and wider questions covering the action taken by the appellants are involved, is withdrawn by the 2nd respondent, the result is that the action of the appellants must be deemed to have been accepted by the 2nd respondent, and there is therefore no further necessity to consider and approve that action in a more limited proceeding, in which the prima facie nature of the action need alone be considered by the Tribunal. We are not inclined to accept this contention, the 2nd respondent, under the law, had the right to request the Tribunal to adjudicate upon the validity of the action taken by the appellants and she might exercise that right or might rot choose to do so. But, the approval that is required under the proviso to Section 33 (2) (b) is independent of this right; and until the action of me appellants is approved By the tribunal, the dismissal does not become final (vide Straw Board Manufacturing co. , Ltd. v. Govind. AIR 1962 SC 1500 ). The withdrawal of the complaint or the 2nd respondent will not obviate the legal necessity, for the approval as contemplated By the proviso to Section 33 (2) (b); nor will it amount to an acceptance by the 2nd respondent of the legality or the justitiability of the action taken by the appellants, it is thus dear that this argument has no force.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.