The scope of the enquiry permissible under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is limited to considering whether a prima facie case for according approval is made out by the employer.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Scope and extent of enquiry permissible under the section - Jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal in holding such an enquiry - Interpretation of the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) - Whether the application for approval of dismissal under the proviso is a condition precedent or not.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Lord Krishna Textile Mills, dismissed 8 of its workmen for allegedly assaulting and beating two of its officers. The Industrial Tribunal refused to accord its approval to the dismissal, holding that the appellant had failed to make out a case for dismissing the workmen. The appellant challenged the legality, validity, and propriety of the order, contending that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction in holding the enquiry.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the scope of the enquiry permissible under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is limited to considering whether a prima facie case for according approval is made out by the employer. The Tribunal can only enquire whether the conditions prescribed by the section and the proviso are satisfied, such as whether the standing orders justify the order of dismissal, whether a proper enquiry was held, whether wages for the month were paid, and whether an application was made as prescribed.
Issues: 1. What is the scope and extent of the enquiry permissible under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. What is the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal in holding such an enquiry? 3. Whether the application for approval of dismissal under the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) is a condition precedent or not?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The scope of the enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) is limited to considering whether a prima facie case for according approval is made out by the employer. 2. The Tribunal can only enquire whether the conditions prescribed by the section and the proviso are satisfied, such as whether the standing orders justify the order of dismissal, whether a proper enquiry was held, whether wages for the month were paid, and whether an application was made as prescribed. 3. The Court did not decide whether the application for approval of dismissal under the proviso is a condition precedent or not, as the issue was not raised by the parties in the present appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order passed by the Tribunal was set aside, and approval was accorded to the action taken by the appellant under Section 6E of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : Three applications made by the appellant, the Lord Krishna Textile Mills, under S. 6-E (2)(b) of the United Provinces Industrial Disputes; Act, 1947 (Act XXVIII of 1947), for obtaining the approval of the Industrial Tribunal to the dismissal of 8 of its workmen have been rejected; and the Tribunal has refused to accord its approval to the action taken by the appellant. This appeal by special leave challenges the legality, validity as well as the propriety of the said order, and the principal question which it seeks to raise is in regard to the scope of the enquiry permissible under S. 6E (2)(b) as well as the extent of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in holding such an enquiry. Section 6E(2) of the U. P. Act is identical in terms with S. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, XIV of 1947 (hereafter called the Act), and for convenience we would refer to the latter section because what we decide in the present appeal will apply as much to cases falling under S. 6E (2)(b) of the U. P. Act as those falling under S. 33(2)(b) of the Act.

2. It appears that on October 12, 1957, when the appellant s Controller of Production and the General Superintendent were discussing certain matters in the office of the appellant mills, Har Prasad, one of the 8 workmen dismissed by the appellant, came to see the Controller along with some other workmen. These workmen placed before the Controller some of their grievances; and when the Controller told their leader Har Prasad that the grievances set forth by them were not justified Har Prasad replied that the Controller was in charge of the management of the appellant mills and could do what he liked, but he added that the ways adopted by the management were not proper and "it may bring very unsatisfactory results . With these words Har Prasad and his companions left the office of the Controller. Two days thereafter Har Prasad and Mool Chand saw the Controller again in his office and complained that one of the Back Sizers Yamin had reported to them that the Controller had beaten him; the Controller denied the allegation whereupon the two workmen left his office. At about 6 p.m. the same evening a number of workmen of the appellant mills surrounded Mr. Contractor, the General Superintendent, and Mr. Surti when they were returning to their bungalows from the mills and assaulted and beat them. The two officers then lodged a First Information Report at the Thana Sadar Bazar, Saharanpur, about 9. P.m., thereupon the Inspector of Police went to the scene of the offence, and on making local enquiries arrest two workmen Ramesh Chander Kaushik and Tika Ram. This offence naturally led to grave disorder in the mills, and the officer of the mills felt great resentment in consequence of which the mills remained closed for three days. The appellant s management then started its own investigations and on October 17 it suspended five workmen Har Prasad, Majid, Zinda, Yamin and Manak Chand. Notice was served on each of these suspended workmen called upon them to explain their conduct and to show cause why they should not be dismissed from the service of the mills. As a result of further investigation the management suspended two more workmen Om Parkash and Satnam on October 24 and served similar, notices on them. Ramesh Chander Kaushik and Tika Ram were then in police custody. After they were released from police custody notices were served on them on November 24 asking them to show cause why their services should not be terminated.

3. All the workmen to whom notices were thus served gave their explanations and denied the charges levelled against them. An enquiry was then held according to the Standing Orders. At the said enquiry all the workmen concerned as well as the representatives of the union were allowed to be present and the offending workmen were given full opportunity to produce their witnesses as also to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the management against them. As a resul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1960 Supreme(SC) 349

The scope of the enquiry permissible under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is limited to considering whether a prima facie case for according approval is made out by the employer.

Cases Referred (2)