RAO U S R SHORE OFFICER NEW INDIA FISHERIES LTD Vs. VLJAYA KUMAR N
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAO U S R SHORE OFFICER NEW INDIA FISHERIES LTD
VLJAYA KUMAR N
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS is an application to quash Ex. P. 6 order passed by the it due trial tribunal, Calicut, allowing a complaint filed under Section 33a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the issue of an appropriate writ or order.
(2.) RESPONDENT 1 was employed as an accountant under the management in question from the year 1963 on wards. His services were terminated with effect from 30 September 1964, on the ground that he committed irregularities in keeping the accounts, which it wan his duty to keep properly. Respondent 1, it is said, was concerned in the industrial dispute in Industrial Dispute No. 102 of 1964 pending before the industrial tribunal, Callout. The termination of the services of respondent 1 by the management was daring the pendency of the dispute and the permission of the tribunal was not sought for the action of the management nor was respondent 1 paid one month's wages as provided in Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There was, therefore, a contravention of Section 33. Alleging that the action taken by the management was illegal, respondent 1 filed an application under Section 33a for taking appropriate action. The tribunal found that respondent 1 was concerned in the industrial dispute that was pending and that previous approval of the tribunal should have been obtained by the management for dismissing him from service. It however passed an award upholding the order of dismissal, but declaring that respondent 1 is entitled to his full salary from the date of the dismissal to the date of Ex. P. 6 order.
(3.) THE petitioner questions the validity of Ex. P. 6 order mainly on the ground that respondent 1 was not concerned in the industrial dispute in Industrial Dispute No. 102 of 1964, and therefore, the management was not bound to seek the previous approval of the tribunal under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act. The tribunal found that the dispute in Industrial Dispute No. 102 of 1984 was in relation to the payment of bonus also and that respondent 1 was cornered in that dispute. Exhibit M. 3 before the tribunal is the order of reference in Industrial Dispute No. 102 of 1964. The dispute in that case was between the Shore Officer, New India Fisheries, Ltd. , the management, on the one hand, and the workers concerned, represented by two labour unions, on the other. Altogether thirteen issues were referred for adjudication. The tribunal found that respondent 1 was concerned at least in the decision of issue (11) which dealt with the question of bonus payable to the workers for the year 1963. Although M. W. 2, the Shore Officer, stated that the bonus paid to the staff and the workers was on different considerations and that respondent 1 being a member of the staff, was not concerned in the decision of the issue, the tribunal did not accept that but held that respondent 1 was concerned in the dispute and that the previous approval of the tribunal should have been obtained before dismissing respondent 1.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.