Contravention of Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 requires the employer to discharge or dismiss a workman without paying one month's wages and without applying for approval from the Labour Court.

Untwalia, J.

1. The two petitioners in this case were the workmen employed in the Cement Factory of respondent No. 1. During the pendency of an industrial dispute before the Industrial Court, they were dismissed by the respondent Company on the 17th of August, 1959. The said Company filed an application before the Labour Court, respondent No. 2, under the proviso to Sec.33 (2) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) hereinafter called the Act, for approval of the action of dismissal taken against the petitioners. The petitioners filed an application under Sec.33A of the Act on the ground of the alleged contravention of the provisions of Sec.33 during the pendency of proceedings before the Labour Court and asked for a relief of reinstatement.

The Labour Court dealt with the two applications together and, by its order dated 2nd of November, 1960, refused to accord its approval to the action of dismissal taken by the Management against the two workmen, the effect of which was dismissal of their (Managements) application made under the proviso to Sec.33(2) of the Act for approval. At the same time, by Its award of the same date contained in the same order published in the Bihar Gazette dated November 16, 1960, (a copy of which is annexure A to the writ application), the Labour Court refused to order the reinstatement of the petitioners under Sec.33A of the Act and, instead, directed payment of three months wages as compensation in lieu of their prayer for reinstatement. The petitioners have obtained a rule from this Court against the respondents to show cause why the said award made under Sec.33A of the Act be not set aside and, instead an award directing reinstatement of the workmen be not made. Cause has been shown on behalf of respondent No. 1, which did not file any application for interference with the order of the Labour Court refusing to accord approval to their action of dismissal against the petitioners.

2. According to the case of the Management, the services of the petitioners were terminated as they, had absented themselves without leave or information for more than ten days. Their case, on toe other hand, was that regular application for leave had been sent by them to the Works Manager through post and, accordingly, they were not guilty of any act of misconduct within the meaning of the Standing orders of the respondent Company. The Labour Court has held that (sic) charge was ever framed against the workmen and at no stage prior to the dismissal of the workmen was any opportunity afforded to them to meet any charge of misconduct which, according to the employer, they were guilty of. On merits also, the Court has rejected the stand of the management that the workmen had absented themselves from work without leave or information for more than 10 days. In that view of the matter, it has refused, to accord its approval to the action of dismissal taken by the Management against the two workmen. The Labour Court has further held that since the dismissal order has not been made in strict, observance of the Standing Orders of the Company, the Management must toe deemed to have contravened the provision of Sec.33 of the Act. In that view of the matter, it has thought it fit to allow the petitioners application under Sec.33A of the Act and give them the relief of compensation as stated above.

3. The only argument put forward by Mr. K. P. Verma, learned advocate for the petitioners is that after refusing to accord approval to the action of dismissal taken by the Management against the petitioners, the effect of which was the dismissal of the application of the respondent Company filed under the proviso to Sec.33 (2) of the Act, the petition under Sec.33A filed by the petitioners also ought to have been merely rejected and the court has committed an error of jurisdiction in allowing that application and giving the relief of compensation only, by taking an erroneous view in regard to the contravention of the