- (1.) HEARD Shri A.N. Tripathi, Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent -appellant.
(2.) IN this Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, the petitioner -appellant has challenged the judgment of this Court dated 22.3.2001 in Writ Petition No. 23697 of 1992, by which the Court found that M/s. Hindalco Industries Limited -the employer had substantially complied with the Proviso to Section 6 -E(2)(b) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the Act) in terminating the services of the petitioner -appellant during the pendency of the industrial dispute. The petitioner -appellant Shri T.K. Mitra, Inspector in the Inspection and Packaging Department, was charge -sheeted on 27.3.1991. After holding a domestic enquiry, he was dismissed from service on 17.7.1991. On that very day, when the order terminating the services was passed, he was sent one month's wages through money order and an application was moved before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 6E(2)(b) of the Act. The appellant did not press and rather consented before the Tribunal that the enquiry was fair and proper. The only question required to be determined was the fact whether the provisions of Section 6E(2)(b) of the Act was complied with.
(3.) LEARNED Single Judge found, relying upon Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Govind, 1962 (1) ALJ 420 that the three things, required to be done, namely dismissal or discharge; payment of wages and making of the application, are parts of the same transaction. If that is done, there is no occasion to fear that the employee's right under Section 33A would be affected. Learned Single Judge further relied upon judgments in Parley products Pvt. Ltd. v. Miss C.S. Saraswati, 1981 Labour & IC 704 by Bombay High Court in finding that the sending of one month's wages by money order is a valid discharge. The writ petition was allowed and the order of the Tribunal dated 27.4.1992 was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to pass orders afresh.;