- (1.) ALTHOUGH order dated September 17, 1992 (Annexure 5), order dated November 26, 1992 (annexure 8), and order dated September 8, 1993 all of which have been passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Kota, J. K. Tyres' Cord vs. Guman Singh and Anr. (15. 03. 1994 -RAJHC) Page 2 of 6 in the proceedings arising out of an application filed by the petitioner under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in my opinion, adjudication of the legality of the order dated September 8, 1993 will decide the controversy in so far as this writ petition is concerned.
(2.) THE facts which are necessary for deciding the legality of the impugned orders are that the workman, Guman Singh, had been initially appointed in J. K. Synthetics Ltd. , Kota, in the year 1970 and on November 1, 1971, he was transferred to J. K. Tyres Cord, Kota, which is a division of J. K. Synthetics Ltd. , Kota. The services of a large number of workmen had been terminated by the employer which ultimately became the subject-matter of reference before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, and on the basis of an award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, the workman was reinstated in service. The workman, Guman Singh, was re-posted in J. K. Tyres Cord. He was served with a memorandum dated July 25, 1990, for holding a domestic enquiry against him in respect of misconduct levelled against him. After the domestic enquiry was held, the employer decided to dismiss him from service. Order dated September 22, 1990 was passed by the employer dismissing the workman from service. Since Guman Singh was a concerned workman in a dispute which was pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, Kota, being Case No. 30 of 1985, an application was filed before the Industrial Tribunal, Kota, under Section 33 (2) (b) of the 1947 Act for grant of approval of the action of the employer in dismissing the workman from service. One month's wages were also paid to the workman simultaneously with his dismissal from service.
(3.) THE workman contested the application filed by the employer and one of the objections raised was that he was not an employee of J. K. Tyres Cord but he was an employee of the J. K. Synthetics Ltd. and that J. K. Tyres Cord had no jurisdiction to dispense with his service or to seek approval of the action taken by it against the workman. He pleaded that he was on deputation with J. K. Tyres Cord in air-conditioning department. The petitioner submitted a rejoinder and reiterated its plea that action taken by the employer against the employee is in accordance with law.;