ORDER : In both these writ petitions, a common question of law arises as to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, to proceed with the hearing of applications, filed by the respective petitioners, under Section 33(2) (b) Proviso, of the Industrial Disputes Act.

2. In order to appreciate the contentions that have been urged by the learned counsel appearing on all sides, it is desirable to set out the circumstances under which these two writ petitions have been filed.

3. In O. P. No. 2883 of 1961 the order dated 12-7-1961 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, Ext. P-1, in M. P. No. 77 of 1961 is challenged. There was an industrial dispute pending adjudication between the management therein and the workers, regarding bonus and that industrial dispute was registered as I. D. No. 68 of 1959. When that dispute was pending the management took disciplinary proceedings against the second respondent and by order dated 7-5-1960 dismissed her from service. By their application dated 16-5-1960, the management sought the approval or the Industrial Tribunal for the action taken by them as they were bound to do, under Section 33(2) (b), Proviso. That application is M. P. No. 88 of 1960. The second respondent appears to have filed objections to the said application filed by the management. In the meanwhile, the award in I. D. No. 68 of 1959 was itself passed by the Industrial Tribunal and that was published in the State Gazette on 12-7-1960, and it becomes enforceable after the expiry of 30 days of the said publication, i.e., on 12th August 1960.

4. In the meanwhile, the second respondent appears to have filed a complaint under Section 33-A of the industrial Disputes Act, on 20-10-1960 regarding the action taken by the management as against her. That dispute was registered as I. D. No. 42 of 1960 by the Industrial Tribunal. The management appears to have filed objections to the same. But, ultimately, it is seen that the employee made a request to the Industrial Tribunal to permit her to withdraw the same reserving her objections and that was on 23-5-1961. Accepting this request and without notice to the management, the Industrial Tribunal passed an order permitting the employee to withdraw her application. That was on 24-5-1961. In view of the fact that this itself is to be an award in an Industrial Dispute, under Section 33-A of the Act, that award was published in the State Gazette on 20-6-1961. That is evidenced by Ext. P2.

5. The management filed an application M. P. No. 77 of 1961 in the previous application for approval, M. P. No. 88 of 1960, on 22-6-1961, raising two grounds, regarding the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to proceed further with their application filed under Section 33(2) (b) Proviso of the Act. Firstly, the management urged that inasmuch as the main dispute, namely, I. D. 68 of 1959, during the pendency of which disciplinary action was taken by the management has come to close by the passing of the award and by its becoming enforceable thirty days after its publication in the State Gazette on 12-7-1960, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to adjudicate upon this application also came to an end, and there is also no further need to go into M. P. No. 88 of 1960. Apart from that, the management took up the stand that inasmuch as a regular complaint filed by the employee, questioning or challenging the disciplinary action taken by the management has itself been withdrawn by the employee, in question, and an award has been passed on that basis, the position, in law, according to the management, was that the employee has no grievance regarding the action and therefore on that basis also the application filed by them, M. P. 88 of 1960, does not arise for consideration.

6. Both these objections were overruled by the Industrial Tribunal by its order dated 12-7-1961, Ext. P-1, and after overruling these objections, the Industrial Tribunal has posted the matter for considering the application of the manag

Click Here to Read the rest of this document