- (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed challenging the order no. 36 dated 13th March, 1992 passed by the seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal in case No. 6/89 - 33 (2) (b) of the industrial Disputes Act and other consequential reliefs on the ground that by passing the impugned order the respondent No. 1 has travelled beyond the scope of the Enquiry as contemplated under Section 3; (2) (b) of the said act. It is highlighted that under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial disputes act the obligations on the part of the respondent no. 1, the Seventh Industrial Tribunal before the granting of the approval thereunder to the action of the petitioner company was to be satisfied that the Certified Standing orders of the company justified the order of dismissal. Enquiry had been held as prescribed by the Certified Standing orders and that the other conditions as contained in Proviso to Section 33 (2) (b) of the said Act had been satisfied. It is also alleged that once the employer has complied with these requirements it is incumbent upon the respondent no. 1 to accord approval to the action taken by the employer.
(2.) LOOKING at the Impugned order it transpires that the Tribunal has ultimately held that the company's action as per the letter dated 19. 4. 1989 against the opp. workman under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes act does not meet the approval. Company's application has, accordingly, been dismissed and the case has been disposed of. Being aggrieved the petitioner has come to the Writ Court.
(3.) MR. Ginwalla, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner Bata india Ltd. , has drawn attention of the Court to the facts of the case that the company initiated a proceeding under Section 33 (2) (b) by filing an application on 19. 4. 89 and prayed for approval of its action of dismissal of its employee Shri Shyam Sundar Batabyal from service under the applicant company. It was stated that a reference case has been filed between the company and its workman, Shri Shyam Sundar Batabyal was an employee of the applicant company at its factory at Batanagar, 24 Parganas and he was concerned in the main adjudication proceedings before the Tribunal. The opposite party allegedly applied for withdrawal of Rs. 17,000/- from his Provident Fund Account under the company and pursuant to such application the amount was paid to the Opp. Party through Account Payee cheque No. SA/8/480457 dated 15. 5. 85 on State Bank of India. Later on the Opp. Party claimed that he did not apply for non-refundable withdrawal from his Provident Fund Account and all signatures in the documents of withdrawal were forged and that no money was received by him. On enquiry it was found that the Opposite Party actually made an application for non-refundable with drawl of Rs. 17,000/- from the said account and actually received Account Payee Cheque from the company. It was alleged that the Opposite Party with an ulterior motive tried to defraud and defame the company to make untrue allegation despite receiving the said sum. In the result, the company issued a charge sheet and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated under clause 2la (a) of the Certified standing Orders and Rules of the company for workman and that the Opp. Party submitted a reply to the charge sheet. Enquiry Officer was appointed thereafter to comply with all the principles of all natural justice by giving opportunity of defence etc. and the Enquiry Officer filed his report finding the Opposite party guilty of misconduct in terms of Clause 21a (a) of the certified Standing Orders and decided that the. Opp. Party was liable to be dismissed from service in terms of the Certified Standing Orders. The matter had been gone into by the Tribunal and it was placed that the chargesheet suggested that the Opp. Party on an enquiry tried to defraud and defame the company by making untrue allegation although the Opp. Party received the same and though he was guilty of misconduct under clause 21a (a) of the Standing orders. The Tribunal has tried to distinguish the evidences adduced on behalf of the Enquiry Officer and observed, inter alia, that the Enquiry officer was over zealous in establishing the ingredients of the misconduct enumerated in Clause 2la (a ). The Tribunal also found that the Enquiry Officer acted perversely and there should not be any approval of the proposed dismissal as made out by the petitioner company in the application seeking leave.;