Shivaraj V. Patil, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The short and straight question, which arises for consideration is "whether a dispute is said to be pending before an Industrial Tribunal for the purpose of proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) during the period when operation of the order of reference of dispute itself remained stayed". 2A. In each one of these appeals appellant No. 1 is a company and appellant No. 2 is one of its shareholders. The BPL Group of Companies Karmikara Sangha (Union) had raised certain disputes on behalf of the workmen of the appellant companies. On failure of conciliation the disputes came to be referred by the Government for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore (for short the Tribunal). By order dated 26-2-1999 the aforesaid union, not being fully satisfied with the order of reference, filed writ petition No. 7335/99 in the High Court seeking a mandamus to the State Government for referring some more points/disputes raised by them. A learned single Judge of the High Court on 11-3-1999, at the stage of issuing notice for admission, passed the interim order in the following terms :- "The operation of the order dated 26-2-1999 bearing No. KAE 117 KA Ky VI 99 and No. KAE-117, KA KY VI 99 passed by R-1 (Annexures A and B to the writ petition respectively) be and the same is hereby stayed for a period of two weeks from 11-3-1999."
(3.) During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the parties submitted that this interim order, having been continued, was in operation till the writ petition was finally disposed of on 12-4-1999. During the pendency of the said writ petition the workmen were dismissed from the service on 31-3-1999 on the ground of serious misconduct. The aggrieved workmen (respondents herein) filed a complaint under Section 33A of the Act before the Tribunal complaining that they have been dismissed from service in contravention of the provisions contained in Section 33(2) of the Act and, therefore, they were entitled to be reinstated. The Management of the appellant companies resisted the complaint raising a preliminary objection to the effect that the orders of dismissal were passed during the period when the order of stay passed by the learned single Judge in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 7355/99 was in operation and as such there was no violation of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. It was urged that when the appellant companies took action in accordance with law no proceedings were pending before the Tribunal as the operation of the very order of reference had been stayed by the High Court. The Tribunal, by its order dated 19-5-2000, rejected the preliminary objection. The appellant-companies filed Writ Petition No. 28377-28378, 28446-28450, 28452 and 28454-28458 of 2001 challenging the correctness and validity of the aforementioned order of the Tribunal rejecting the preliminary objection. The learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions upholding the view taken by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by and not satisfied with the order of the learned single Judge of the High Court the appellant companies filed writ appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, fully concurring with the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge, dismissed the writ appeals by the common order under challenge in these appeals.;