Y. K. Sabharwal, J. - (1.) The appellant was ordered to be dismissed from service in terms of the dismissal order dated 24th April, 1987 passed by the employer-respondent No. 1. The said order is said to have been passed considering the report of the Inquiry Officer in respect of the charges levelled against the appellant. Section 6-E(2)(b) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (For short, 'the Act'), inter alia stipulates that during the pendency of any proceedings in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance with the Standing Order applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute, for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise that workman. The proviso to the said section, however, stipulates that no such workman 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 proceedings are pending for approval of the action taken by the employer. On account of pendency of industrial disputes in Reference Proceedings in Adjudication Case No. 53 of 1986, respondent No. 1, as required by the aforesaid section, moved an application dated 27th April, 1987 before the Industrial Tribunal seeking approval of the order of dismissal. The said application was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 7 of 1988. It was resisted by the appellant. In reply the appellant inter alia disputed that he was paid one month wages as required by Section 6-E(2)(b) of the Act. An application was also moved by the appellant before the Industrial Tribunal stating that he has not been paid HRA as well as CCA which was payable to him and, therefore, the employer has not paid to him full month wages payable under Section 6-E(2)(b).
(2.) After the dismissal order was made, the appellant raised an industrial dispute challenging his dismissal and the State Government made a reference under S. 4-K of the Act for adjudication of the said dispute by the Industrial Tribunal. This was registered as Adjudication Case No. 31 of 1988. The dispute referred was as follows: "Whether dismissal order dated 24th April, 1987 passed by the employer against workman Hari Dutt Sharma, son of Kishan Chand Sharma, General Clerk-cum-Duplicating Machine Operator is legal and/or justified If not, then to what benefit/relief the workman is entitled for and with any other details -
(3.) Respondent No. 1, by its application dated 31st January, 1990, sought permission of the Industrial Tribunal to withdraw the approval application. The said application was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal by order dated 29th June, 1990.;