Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J.:- The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave, is whether the High Court in this case while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 227 was justified in reversing the order of the Industrial Tribunal granting approval under the proviso to S. 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act).

2. The workman concerned though served has not appeared before us in these proceedings, but Mr. S. V. Gupte, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has quite fairly placed before us all aspects of the case.

3. The workman concerned was employed in the appellant Company as an unskilled worker in the General Department and is termed as a helper. On a prior occasion, in view of complaints received against him the appellant administered to the workman a warning on April 9, 1963. But later on again, in view of his unsatisfactory conduct charges were framed on April 12, 1963 and duly served on the workman and an inquiry, after due notice to the workman was conducted by the management on April 17, 1963. The workman was found guilty by the management in the said inquiry. The finding in the inquiry was that the workman was guilty of the charge of refusal to carry out the lawful orders of his superiors in charge. Accordingly, on April 19, 1963 a memo was issued to the workman regarding the inquiry conducted against him as well the finding of guilt recorded therein. It was also stated that he was found guilty of similar offences in the past and that he was let off with a warning on his tendering an apology and undertaking to behave properly in future. The memo winds up by saying that the workman is dismissed with immediate effect. The memo also informed the workman to collect his salary upto date as well as one month s wages from the Accountant of the Company. This order of dismissal was served on the workman only on April 24, 1963 as he was not available till then. April 25, 1963 was a holiday and on April 26, 1963 the management entrusted the necessary papers to their Legal Adviser to prepare an application to be filed before the Industrial Tribunal for approval under S. 33 (2) (b) proviso of the Act. The application was got ready on April 27, 1963 and the next day being Sunday, it was filed before the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra on April 29, 1963.

4. On receipt of the order of dismissal, the workman sent a reply on May 8, 1963 stating that he will be accepting whatever amount is offered to him without prejudice to his claims and contentions. He again sent a communication on May, 9, 1963 that he presented himself for receiving the amount on May 7, 1963 and that he had not been paid the amount as it was represented by the Accountant that the file relating to his case is with the Head Office. Ultimately, the workman received the amount on May 17, 1963 by which time the application, as we have already mentioned, had been filed before the Industrial Tribunal on April 29, 1963.

5. In the application filed by the management, they have set out the circumstances leading up to the passing of the order of dismissal and also to his having collected his dues from the Company. The reasons for passing the order of dismissal were also mentioned in the said application.

6. The workman filed a written statement opposing the application filed by the management for grant of approval under S. 33 (2) (b) proviso. In particular in paragraph 3 of his counter-affidavit he has stated that he was served with the order of dismissal on April 24, 1963 and that he was required to collect his salary as well as one month s wages. According to him the Accountant has delayed paying the amount and the same was ultimately given to him on May 7, 1963, although his dismissal has been made effective from April 19, 1963. He has further referred to the fact that the application before the Industrial Tribunal has been made only on April 29, 1963. On these facts he has taken a plea that the