MIDLAND RUBBER PRODUCE COMPANY LTD Vs. UTHAYASURIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges Ext. P9 order dismissing the application filed under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short"the Act") seeking approval of the dismissal order passed against the first respondent herein.

(2.) The petitioner, a company having tea and rubber estates in Kerala, initiated disciplinary proceedings against the first respondent/workman. Following the finding in the enquiry report that found the workman guilty of the charges, a punishment of dismissal was imposed as per Ext. P4. The petitioner/employer made Ext. P5 application under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Act in view of the pendency of the Industrial dispute raised by the 3rd respondent on the charter of demands made before the 2nd respondent. The said application was rejected by Ext. P9 stating that in view of the pending dispute raised at the instance of the Union, the application filed by the employer cannot be allowed.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Sri. E.K. Nandakumar submits that the 2nd respondent has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him under the Act legally. He further submits that that even if the industrial dispute is pending, approval ought to have been granted without prejudice to the right of the Union to proceed with the dispute. The finding in Ext. P9 is ex facie illegal and the duty of the 2nd respondent was only to verify whether the enquiry stated to be conducted was fair and whether one month's wages as prescribed under the proviso to Sec. 33 (2) (b) was paid. He further submits that as the twin requirements were satisfied, the approval sought for ought to have been allowed.