JUDGMENT :

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J.

This Court has heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti and learned Government Pleader for Labour for respondents.

2. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellant contends that the learned single Judge committed an error in interpreting sections 33(1)(b) and 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). He points out that there is no unfair trade practice at all in this case and that before taking action, the petitioners had in fact sought approval from the Labour Court for taking action against the workman. Only after the approval was granted, the management had taken action. He also argues that the services of the workman were terminated on 13.07.2009 and a writ was filed thereafter, but the order of termination was not challenged.

3. He points out that labour Court after going through the relevant provisions of the law has granted permission on 01.07.2019 for taking action. He points out to the prayer in I.A.No.61 of 2008 and the findings given by the Labour Court. He relies on the questions framed by the Labour Court and the answers to the said questions. Lastly, he submits that the single Judge himself incorporated the provisions of law but passed the impugned order contrary to the law. It is his contention that the scope of enquiry can only be limited to the order dated 01.07.2019 which has been passed in the I.D. by the Labour Court and it cannot extend to setting aside the dismissal order.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent points out that the order of the learned single Judge is strictly in accordance with law and is in consonance with the decided case law on the subject which is referred to in the impugned order. He points out that the industrial dispute pending before the labour Court was with relation to the frequent transfers and harassment meted out to the workman. The later dispute (on the basis of which the impugned order is passed) relates to the unauthorized absence of the workman. Therefore, he submits that section 33(2)(b) of the Act that applies and not section 33(1) of the Act or its sub-sections. He points out that the action taken is contrary to law and amounts to an unfair Labour practice. Therefore, it is his contention that the learned single Judge did not commit any error whatsoever. He relies upon Sri Dorairaj Spintex v. R.Chittibabu and others, (2021) 12 SCC 38, Lalla Ram v. D.C.M.Chemical Works Ltd and another, (1978) 3 SCC 1 and Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. V. Shri Ram Gopal Sharma and others, AIR 2002 SC 643 in support of his case.

5. The facts which are necessary for adjudication are as follows:

(a) The Industrial Dispute which was pending before the Labour Court, Ananthapur in I.D.No.199 of 2005 pertains to the dispute with regard to the repeated transfers of the workman to different stations and harassing him mentally. The said dispute was referred by the Government by G.O.Rt.No.1903 and it was numbered as I.D.No.199 of 2005 on the file of this labour Court, Ananthapur. This is visible from para 3 of the order passed in I.A.No.61 of 2008 in I.D.No.199 of 2008.

(b) The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the workman pertain to his unauthorized absence of the workman (absence without leave) for a total period of 80 days in between 30.03.2004 to 02.02.2005. This is visible from the report of the findings in respect of the domestic enquiry held. Same is filed as a material paper.

6. The relevant sections of law are sections 33 (1) and (2) of the Act, which are as follows:

33. Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings. - (1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding before][an arbitrator or][a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer sh