The workman can invoke Section 33A of the I.D. Act only if there is a pending industrial dispute between the parties.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. The Petitioner in the present Writ Petition is assailing the Award dated 23.03.1999 ("Impugned Award") passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in I.D Complaint No.1117/89 titled as `Om Prakash Vs IARI'.

2. The Respondent/workman filed an Application under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act (I.D. Act) before the learned Labour Court alleging that the Petitioner/Management terminated his service during the pendency of an industrial dispute between the Petitioner/Management and its Workman relating to certain demands unconnected with the present dispute. The said action of the Petitioner/Management has hence resulted in contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. Vide the Impugned Award, the learned Labour Court held that the Petitioner/Management terminated the service of the Respondent/Workman in contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. Learned Labour Court further held that the Petitioner/Management failed to prove the misconduct and hence the termination was held to be illegal. In view of the same, the learned Labour Court directed the reinstatement of the Respondent/workman with back wages from June, 1989 onwards.

FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE DISPOSAL OF THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION ARE AS FOLLOWS:

3. The Respondent/Workman joined the service of the Petitioner/Management as a daily wager on 19.01.1982 and worked approximately for one month. Subsequently, Respondent/Workman was given appointment as SS Grade-I with effect from 30.05.1984. As per the said appointment letter, the Respondent/Workman was on probation for a period of 2 years from the date of appointment and thereafter, the confirmation was subject to the approval of the competent authority.

4. The Respondent/workman was detained by the police from 18.02.1985 to 27.02.1985 in connection with a theft case that occurred on 29.01.1985. The Respondent/Workman was released on bail on 27.02.1985 but he failed to report back to duty till 19.03.1985. The competent authority of the Petitioner/Management on becoming aware of the misconduct of the Respondent/workman terminated his service vide letter dated 20.03.1985 by invoking clause 6 of the appointment letter under Rule 5 of CCS (TS) Rules.

5. The Respondent/Workman approached the learned Labour Court under Section 33A of the I.D. Act alleging that the Petitioner/Management terminated his service during the pendency of an Industrial dispute between the Petitioner/Management and its Workman relating to certain demands unconnected with the present dispute and hence, the Petitioner/Management contravened Section 33 of the I.D. Act.

6. The Respondent/Workman in his complaint alleged that he has not received any letter of termination. Hence, the Respondent/Workman was under the impression that he was under suspension due to his arrest. On 28.01.1989, he was informed by an officer of the Petitioner/Management that his services were terminated w.e.f. 20.03.1985. The Respondent/Workman, therefore, initiated a complaint for his reinstatement under Section 33A of the I.D. Act but subsequently withdrew the said complaint with liberty to file a fresh complaint on account of jurisdictional issues as is reflected in the order dated 15.02.1989. Thereafter, he filed the present Application under Section 33A of the I.D. Act.

7. The Petitioner/Management filed its Reply raising the preliminary objection qua the maintainability of the Application filed by the Respondent/Workman. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent's application is barred by res judicata as he has withdrawn the earlier Application with same relief and no liberty was granted to the Respondent to file a separate Application. It is also the contention of the Petitioner that the Application under Section 33 of the I.D. Act is not applicable as the pending dispute is not related to the Respondent/Workman. The Respondent/Workman is further governed by CCS (TS) Rules, and hence, the complaint un