N.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against an order of the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna, dated 30th April, 1985, whereby the petition filed on behalf of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (in short 'Corporation') under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the Act) has been rejected.
(2.) RESPONDENT no. 2 while working as conductor in the Corporation, at the stage when an industrial dispute was pending before the tribunal, was discharged from service by the order of the Managing Director. The Corporation, therefore filed an application before the tribunal for approval of its action, taken under the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. The tribunal after hearing the parties and having found that there was no simultaneous compliance of the requirement of the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, rejected the application.
(3.) THE principal point, which has been raised before, me, is whether the Industrial Tribunal was justified in rejecting its approval under proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. I shall, therefore, before proceeding to adjudicate whether there was simultaneous compliance of the proviso to the aforesaid section as also having regard to the views expressed by the apex court in the case of Strawboard Manufacturing Company Vs. Gobind . (1962 -I -LLJ 420 SC), would like to set out the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act which reads as follows: "(2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance with the standing orders applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute - (a) X X X X (b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, discharge or punish whether by dismissal or otherwise of that workman : Provided that no such worman shall be discharged or dismissed, unless he has been paid wages for one month and an application has been made by the employer to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer." In the present case, I am concerned with the interpretation of the proves to clause (b) of Section 33(2) which says that no workman shall be discharged or dismissed unless he has been paid wages for one month and the application was made by the employer to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer.;