KHAGENDRA PRASAD PATRA Vs. D T M S T S KORAPUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question in this petition is as to the meaning of the expression "workmen concerned" in clause (a) of Section 33 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter called the Act).

(2.) The petitioner worked as a conductor under the State Transport Department in the Koraput Zone. By order dated January 18, 1968 the District Transport Manager, Koraput, Jeypore discharged him from service with immediate effect. The petitioner lodged a complaint under Section 33-A of the Act contending that the discharge was in contravention of the provisions of Section 33 (1) (a) of of the Act as he had been discharged while the case of another conductor N. N. Patnaik was pending before the Industrial Tribunal. The plea was not accepted by the Labour Court vide award dated September 13, 1971. It is this award which is being challenged in this petition.

(3.) Clause (a) of Section 33 (1) of the Act reads as under :