Tapen Sen, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Satish Bak -shi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
(2.) IN his writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 22.8.1997 (Annexure -1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 1992 whereby and whereunder he held that the order of dismissal passed by the Management against the respondent No. 2 is not in conformity with the proviso appended to Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and accordingly refused to grant approval prayed or by the Management relating to dismissal of the concerned workman. According to the writ petitioner, the learned Court below while passing the impugned order exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the said Act) inasmuch as he proceeded to enter into the merits of the case and passed an order which had the effect of deciding the validity of dismissal itself as if it were a complaint under Section 33A of the said Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Labour Court while passing the impugned order could not and should not have entered into the merits of the case and all that he should have done was to have either approved or disapproved the action of the Management. The short facts which are necessary to be taken note of and which appear from either the pleadings or the impugned order are that on 9.6.1990, the concerned workman (respondent No. 2) along with some other persons created disturbance, destruction and committed loot of the properties belonging to the petitioner as a consequence whereof a charge -sheet dated 11.6.1990 was issued. The respondent No. 2 filed his explanation on 3.7.1990 which was not found to be satisfactory whereafter, an inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer, who submitted his inquiry report dated 10.1.1992 on 10.9.1992. In the inquiry, the respondent No. 2 participated but finally the Inquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges. Subsequently, the General Manager, after having gone through the inquiry report the proceedings of the Inquiry Committee etc. came to a conclusion that the punishment of dismissal from service was fit and proper.
(3.) BY way of abundant caution, although the provisions of Section 33 were not applicable, the petitioner filed an application under the proviso appended to Section 33(2)(b) of the said Act seeking approval of their decision to dismiss the respondent No. 2 from service. The said application filed by the petitioner is Annexure -2 of this writ application. The ground assigned for purposes of filing the said application has been stated at paragraph -4 of the Writ Application wherein the petitioner has stated that the aforementioned application for approval was filed in view of pendency of another case, namely. Reference Case No. 16 of 1991 which was pending before the Labour Court and according to both Mr. Satish Bakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner as also Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, the said reference was not connected in so far as respondent No. 2 was concerned. In other words, both have admitted that the respondent No. 2 was not connected with Reference Case No. 16 of 1991.;