An application for approval of discharge under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is maintainable even if it is made before the actual discharge of the employee, provided that the three conditions in the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) are met.

Judgment

WANCHOO, J. : This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Central Government Labour Court at Dhanbad. The respondent was in the service of the appellant bank s branch at Calcutta and worked as an assistant cashier. On June 17, 1961, one Shankerlal applied for telegraphic transfer of Rs. 4,000/- from Calcutta to Sujangarh and handed over currency notes of Rs. 100/- each of the respondent. As the respondent was counting the notes, Shankerlal remembered that he had given 41 notes instead of 40 to the respondent and requested him to return the bundle of notes for verification. The respondent however refused to return the note saying that the amount given to him was Rs. 4,000/- and not Rs. 4,100/- Shankerlal went back to his shop and verified that he had taken 41 notes instead of 40 and had thus handed over one note of Rs. 100/- extra to the respondent in connection with the telegraphic transfer. He then came back to the bank and complained to the manager about this. The manager ordered the chief cashier to close the cash in the hands of the respondents and to check the amount in his hand with the books. The Chief cashier found on checking that there was one note of Rs. 100/- extra with the respondent. The manager asked the respondent to hand over the extra note but the respondent refused to do so saying that it belonged to him. In explanation he said that it had been given to him by his mother. The manager immediately took steps to verify this statement and deputed the chief cashier along with another person to the respondent s house to make necessary inquiries. But at the house of the respondent both his mother and father said that they had not given a hundred rupee note to the respondent. Thereafter the respondent was told what his parents had said and asked what he had to say further. The respondent then came out with another story that the note was given to him by a tenant of the building in which he lived. He gave out the name of the tenant as Mondal. The manager again sent the same persons to make enquiries from Mondal but it was found that there was no person of the name of Mondal in that building. The bank therefore decided to take disciplinary proceedings against the respondent and handed over a charge sheet to him. The respondent was also suspended from the bank s service. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted against the respondent. The enquiry officer came to the conclusion that the two charges framed against the respondent had been proved and recommended after taking into consideration the past service and conduct of the respondent that he should be discharged from the service of the bank. Thereafter according to the rules prevalent in the bank the respondent was given notice to show cause why he should not be discharged. His explanation was taken into account and thereafter the bank decided to discharge him. So on December 27, 1961, the bank applied under S. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act. No. 14 of 1947, for approval of the action proposed to be taken against the respondent. It may be added that after this application was made, the bank s case is that it actually discharged the respondent on January 15, 1962.

2. The application under S. 33(2) (b) finally came up for disposal before the labour court. That court held relying on a decision of this Court in Strawbord Manufacturing Co. v. Govind, (1962) Supp (3) SCR 618 that as the application had been made for approval of the proposed discharge and before the actual discharge of the respondent, it was not maintainable. Consequently it dismissed the bank s prayer for approval of the proposed action. The present appeal by special leave is against this order of labour court.

3. The main contention of the appellant is that that labour court was not right in holding that the application was not, maintainable on the ground that it had been made for approval of the proposed action and not after the action had been taken. It is urged that the decisi