The main legal point established in the judgment is that the setting aside of the approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 resulted in the automatic reinstatement of the workmen, entitling them to full back wages from the date of dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

Gauri Godse, J.

1. The Letters Patent Appeal No. 270 of 2009 challenges Judgment and Order dated 18th August 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Petition No. 86 of 2009 in Writ Petition No. 2791 of 2009 (“the review order”). Appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal–Awadesh Singh Yadav and others (“the workmen”) are the original Petitioners.

2. By Judgment and Order dated 24th April 2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 2791 of 2009 (“Order in Writ Petition”), the Learned Single Judge set aside the approval granted by the Respondent No. 1 in the Writ Petition (“the Conciliation Officer”) under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the said Act”) to the order of dismissal of the workmen. In paragraph 16 of the Order in Writ Petition, it was observed that since the matter is being referred by the Regional Deputy Commissioner (Respondent No. 3 in the Writ Petition) (“the Deputy Commissioner”) to the Industrial Court, all the other questions were kept open and the employer was held entitled to prove the alleged misconduct to the Industrial Court by leading evidence. The workmen filed the Review Petition seeking clarification regarding observations in paragraph 16 of the Order in Writ Petition.

3. By the review order, the learned Single Judge partly allowed the review petition and the observations made in paragraph 16 of the Order in Writ Petition were withdrawn and substituted with fresh directions which are as under :

“(i) Respondent No. 2 in the original Petition are permitted to lead evidence before the Labour Enforcement Officer/Conciliation Officer under section 33(2)(b) for proving charges of misconduct against workmen.

(ii) Liberty is granted to original petitioners to apply for subsistence allowance.

(iii) If an application for subsistence allowance is made by petitioners, Conciliation Officer shall decide it in accordance with law.”

4. The Letters Patent Appeal No. 83 of 2010 is filed by M/s IPCA Laboratories Ltd (“the employer”) for challenging the Order in Writ Petition.

FACTS IN BRIEF:

5. Writ Petition was filed by the workmen for challenging order dated 21st July 2008 passed by the Conciliation Officer. By Order dated 21st July 2008, approval was granted by the Conciliation Officer for dismissing the workmen from the employment. In the Writ Petition, the workmen also prayed for directing Respondent No. 2 in the Writ Petition-the employer, to reinstate the workmen with full back wages and continuity of service with effect from 30th March 2007. In the Writ Petition, the workmen further prayed for directing the Conciliation Officer to admit into conciliation the demand raised on the employer on 28th February 2008 as per intervention letter dated 31st March 2008 and direct the Deputy Commissioner to refer the matter for adjudication under Section 10 of the said Act.

6. Ms Cox, learned Counsel for the workmen has submitted a list of relevant dates and events. During the pendency of the Charter of Demands before the Conciliation Officer, the employer on 11th April 2007 issued chargesheet under the Central Standing Orders (“CSOs”). The CSOs provided for the charge-sheeted workmen to be represented in an Enquiry by an office bearer of a trade union of which workmen is a member. On 23rd July 2007, the workmen filed an application for permission to be represented in the enquiry by a law graduate. On 8th August 2007, the enquiry officer disallowed the said request on the ground that CSOs only provided for representation by office bearers of the trade union. Thereafter the workmen on 12th September 2007, again requested for representation by a law graduate, as there was no defense representative available in the union who was a law graduate. On 25th November 2007, the workmen appointed office bearer of the union as defense representative. However, this was also not allowed by the enquiry officer on the ground that union must be a union recognized by the management.

7. In the meantime, the enquiry continue