PARAS NATH MISRA Vs. U P STATE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
LAWS(ALL)-1972-7-29
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on July 12,1972

PARAS NATH MISRA Appellant
VERSUS
U P STATE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge dated March 27, 1964 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2768 of 1959. Paras Nath Misra is the appellant in Special Appeal No. 377 of 1964 whereas Special Appeal No. 498 of 1964 has been filed by the U. P. State Industrial Tribunal and the State of U. P. Paras Nath Misra was employed as a darban in the establishment at Allahabad of Amrit Bazar Patrika Private Ltd. The State Government referred an industrial dispute in regard to bonus between Amrit Bazar Patrika Private Ltd. , herein referred to as the company, and its employees on December 16, 1957. The Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad gave its award which was published on March 21,1958. Since it became enforceable on the expiry of 30 days of the date of its publication the proceedings would be taken to have remained pending by virtue of Section 6d of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act (Act 28 of 1947) hereinafter referred to as the Act, from December 16, 1957 to April 20, 1958.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the aforesaid dispute the company charge-sheeted Paras Nath Misra on January 28, 1958 for disobedience and insolent behaviour. He was suspended with effect from January 29, 1958 and in pursuance of departmental enquiry that took place subsequently he was dismissed with effect from January 29, 1958. This order was communicated to Paras Nath Misra vide letter dated March 20, 1958.
(3.) PARAS Nath Misra filed a complaint under Section 6f of the Act making a grievance of the fact that the order of his dismissal was in contravention of the provision of Section 6e (2) of the Act. The case set up by Paras Nath Misra was that since an industrial dispute was pending before the Industrial Tribunal at the time when the order of dismissal was passed the said order was illegal inasmuch as neither he had been paid wages for one month nor had an application been made by the company to the Industrial Tribunal for approval of the action taken by it as required by Section 6e (2) of the Act.;


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