GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZERS COMPANY LIMITED Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-1988-9-16
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on September 08,1988

Gujarat State Fertilizers Company Limited Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BOEL QUAY WHARFINGERS LTD. V. KING'S LYNN CONSERVANCY BOARD [REFERRED TO]
STRAW BOARD MANUFACTURING CO LIMITED SAHARANPUR VS. GOVIND [REFERRED TO]
FILMISTAN PRIVATE LIMITED VS. BALKRISHNA BHIWA [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB BEVERAGES PVT LIMITED CHANDIGARH MANAGEMENT OF HINDUSTAN COPPER LIMITED VS. SURESH CHAND:N K SAXENA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

A.M.AHMADI - (1.)Whether an employer who applies for approval under clause (1) of sub-section (2) of Sec. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) has 8 right (dominis litis) to withdraw the proceeding at any stage before a final decision is recorded by the concerned authority ? That is the question which is raised in this petition brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the employer. The Gujarat State petitioners Company Ltd. against the decision of the Conciliation Officer Baroda refusing permission to withdraw the application filed under the said provisions. The factual background in which the question arises for consideration may be stated is brief as under.
(2.)The third respondent Vinayak S. Desai was employed 88 a Research Assistant (Trainee) sometime in October 1972 by the petitioner Company. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 28/01/1974 for certain alleged acts of misconduct and was placed under suspension pending the departments inquiry. On receipt of the report of the Inquiry Officer who held the departmental inquiry he was served with a second cause cause notice on 1/08/1974 and was ultimately discharged from service by an order dated 15/10/1974
(3.)At the time when the order of discharge was made an industrial dispute in regard to the payment of dearness allowance was pending before the Conciliation Officer Baroda The petitioner Company therefore filed an application under clause (b) of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 33 of the Act for approval of the action taken against the employee. This application was made on the same day i. e. 15/10/1974 and was registered as application No. 60 of 1974. The said approval application was granted by the Conciliation Officer by the order dated 30/01/1976 The employee feeling aggrieved by the said order of the Conciliation Officer approached this Court by way of a writ petition Special Civil Application No. 961 of 1976 challenging the said order. This Court by its judgment and order dated 6/04/1977 quashed and set aside the order passed by the Conciliation Officer. It appears from the copy of the judgment of this Court in the said writ petition Annexure F that the Conciliation Officer had disposed of the approval application by dealing with only one out of the nine objections raised by the employee without considering the other eight objections. This Court while quashing the said impugned order stated as under:
"We are therefore constrained to quash the impugned order Annexure `X and direct the Conciliation Officer to dispose of the application afresh according to law on merits after giving an opportunity to both sides of being heard. Petition allowed accordingly. No order as to costs".
We have reproduced this part of the Courts order because one of the submission made before us on behalf of the employee was based on the language of this order. We will deal with the same later.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.