JUDGMENT - (1) The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. Respondent No. 1 was employed by the petitioner as a fitter in its repair workshop. There was a dispute between the company and its workmen in regard to bonus for 1956-57. This was referred for adjudication to the second Respondent under section 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the first respondent was dismissed by the petitioner on 10th October 1958. The charge against him was that he had thrown stones at the staff Managers car on 5th May 1958. On 19th November 1958 the petitioner made an application to the second Respondent for granting its approval to the action taken by it under Section 33(2) of the Act. The Tribunal took the view that the application should have been made before the first respondent was dismissed. As the application was made after the order of dismissal ad been passed, the Tribunal refused to grant its approval to the action taken by the petitioner against the first respondent and rejected the application made by the petitioner. This order made by the Tribunal is being challenged before us in the present petition.

(2) Mr. Narayanswami, who appearrs on behalf of the petitioner, has urged that the view taken by the Industrial Tribunal that the petitioner should have made an application to the Tribunal before the order of dismissal was passed, is erroneous, in order to decide this question it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 33 of the Act was in the following terms before it was amended in 1956:

"During the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a Tribunal in respectof any industrial dispute, no employer shall

(a) alter, to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceedings; or

(b) discharge or punish whether by dismissal or otherwise any workmen concerned in such dispute, save with the express permission in writing of the conciliation officer, Board or Tribunal, as the case may be."

This section imposed an absolute ban on an employer from alering the conditions of service to the prejudice of any workman or punishing him during the pendencyof the industrial dispute, except with the prior permission of he authority before which the dispute was pending. The result of this provision was that the employer could not take any action against a workman even for gross misconduct, which had no connection whatsover with he pending industrial dispute. The Legislature, therefore, considered it necessary to amend this section. The reasons for the amendment made in 1956 were stated as follows in the statement of objects and reasons:

"4. The existing provisions of Section 33 of the Act prohibit during the pendency of any conciliation proceeding or proceeding before a Tribunal any change being made in the conditions of service of, or any action being taken against, the workmen concerned in the dispute except with the express written permission of the authority concerned. The number of applications for such permission is frequently large and their disposal takes time. Employers have complained that they are therefore prevented from taking action even in obvious cases of misconduct and indiscipline unconnected with the dispute till long after the offence has been committed. It is proposed to after the existing provisions so as to provide that, where, during the pendency of proceedings an employer finds it necessary to proceed against any workman in regard to any matter unconnected with the dispute, he may do so in accordance with the Standing Order applicable to the workman, with the Standing Order applicable to the workman, but where the action taken involves discharge or dismissal, he will have to pay the workman one months wags and simultaneously file an application before the authority, before which the proceeding is pendin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document