Judgment

GROVER, J; - This is an appeal by special leave from an order of the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, dismissing the application of the appellant mills under S. 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act , and refusing to accord approval to the dismissal of the workmen concerned.

2. On the 18th December, 1947, the respondents workmen were charge-sheeted for certain acts of misconduct. Since they were not available for service, copies of the charge-sheet were forwarded to their addresses by registered post on December 20, 1967. The copies were also affixed on the notice board of the mills. The charge-sheet posted to respondent 1 was returned undelivered on or about the 24th December 1967. However, the charge-sheet, which was sent by registered post to the other respondent, was delivered to him on December 23, 1967. On that very day, letters were issued to the respondents fixing the date of enquiry on the 30th December 1967. Copies of those letters were posted on the notice board, and the mills also published in a local daily newspaper "Rashtradoot" in its issue of December 24, 1967, a notice to the respondents, informing them that the enquiry would be held on December 30, 1967, with regard to the charges preferred against them. Notices were also sent by registered post to their addresses which were returned undelivered. The respondents did not present themselves for enquiry before the enquiry officer who proceeded to hold it in their absence on December 30, 1967. The enquiry officer submitted his report on December 31, 1967. That report was considered by the manager of the mills, and he passed an order, directing the dismissal of the respondents. Pursuant to the order of the manager, dismissal orders were issued to the respondents on January 4, 1968, by registered post. These letters were, however, returned undelivered on January 8,1968. On January 8, 1968 the appellant-mills forwarded an application under S. 33 (2) (b) of the Act to the Industrial Tribunal for approval of the action. That application was dismissed.

3. In the, application, which was filed under S. 33 (2) (b) of the Act, after setting out some of the facts that have been already mentioned, it was stated in para 11 that a voucher for an amount equivalent to each of the opposite party s one month s wages had been sent along with the dismissal order under cl. (b) of sub-section (2) of S. 33 of the Act. The workmen filed a written statement raising some preliminary objections, but in para 3 of the written statement, it was alleged by them that the so-called enquiry was completed on December 30, 1967, and the report was submitted on the same day. Thereupon the workmen were ordered to be dismissed with immediate effect on January 4, 1968. The application for approval of the dismissal of the workmen was made before the Tribunal on January 25, 1968, and one month s wages as required under the Act, were given to the workmen only on February 2, 1968. Thus the appellant mills had failed to carry out the mandatory provisions of S. 33 (2) (b) of the Act. It is unnecessary to refer to the pleas taken on other matters.

4. A rejoinder was filed by the mills and it is necessary to set out the reply to para 3 of the written statement of the workmen:

"That the contents of para 3 are not admitted as stated. It may be mentioned here that the workmen were served with the dismissal order and the acknowledgment due form was received by the mills on 8-1-1968 and along with the dismissal order the workman was also given pay slip authorising him to collect one month s notice wages from the cashier of the company. An application for the approval of the order of dismissal was submitted before the Hon ble court on 8-1-1968. It is wholly incorrect that the workman was ordered to be dismissed with effect from 4-1-68, or that the application for the approval of the dismissal of the workman was made before the Hon ble Tribunal on 25-1-1968. The question of th