JUDGMENT - Patel, J.

(1) This is an application by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal by which the Tribunal dismissed the complaints of the petitioner and one other person holding that the complaints did not lie under section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2) The short facts which gave rise to this application need be stated. The respondent No. 2 is a small manufacturer and is doing business in Bombay. The petitioner was one of the servants of respondent No.2 In or about May 1960 an Industrial dispute between respondent No. 2 and his workmen was referred to the Industrial Tribunal under section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The incident in respect of which the complaint under review was made occurred on 27th July, 1960. After a fruitless complaint before the Labour Officer, this petitioner and another made two applications to the Industrial Tribunal in the month of August, 1960, under section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. He alleged that on 22nd July, 1960, respondent No.2 assaulted him and dismissed him from service. As the dismissal occurred during the pendency of the industrial dispute before

Click Here to Read the rest of this document