Ranjan Gogoi, J. - (1.) AN affirmative answer of the learned Industrial Tribunal, Silchar on an application filed by the workman under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has prompted the present approach of the petitioner -employer under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE facts in brief may be noted at the outset. The respondent No. 2 herein who was, at the relevant point of time, working in the post of Supervisor Grade -II in the Cachar Paper Mill of the Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. was dismissed by the management by an order dated 11.10.1998. As there was already an industrial dispute involving the respondent pending before the Industrial Tribunal at Silchar; the management filed an application under Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the learned Tribunal below seeking approval of the dismissal order passed by it. Misc. Case No. 14/1988 was registered on the basis of the application filed by the management. The said application filed by the management was allowed to be withdrawn by the learned Tribunal by an order dated 3.10.1991. Thereafter, the respondent -workman filed an application under Section 33A of the Act before the learned Tribunal contending that his dismissal was in contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act and furthermore that in any event the said dismissal is not warranted in law. On receipt of the application filed by the respondent -workman under Section 33A of the Act, the learned Tribunal registered Misc. Case No. 19/1992 in respect thereof and issued notice on the management. The management filed its objections/written statement in the case. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned Tribunal below identified two questions as the core issues calling for its decision. The first issue, identified by the learned Tribunal, is whether the respondent is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The second question identified was if the respondent was a workman within the meaning of the Act whether the dismissal of the workman by the management was sustainable in law.
(3.) THE learned Tribunal by its order dated 15.11.1999 took the view that on due consideration of the evidence adduced by the respective parties it could be held that the respondent was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The learned Tribunal further held that as the application filed by the management under Section 33(2) of the Act seeking approval of its actions in dismissing the workman was withdrawn by the management, the dismissal of the respondent was in contravention of the provisions of Section 33 and, therefore, the said action was void, illegal and inoperative in law. Consequently, by its order dated 15.11.1999 the learned Tribunal ordered for reinstatement of the workman with consequential back wages and other benefits. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed.;