ORDER :- In this writ petition, Mr. K. Velayudhan Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the common award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, in I. D. Nos. 50, 53 and 58 of 1959.

2. The management appears to have terminated the services of certain workers; and, in view of the fact that an industrial dispute was already pending as I. D. No. 20/1958, it was the grievance of the workers concerned, that action has been taken by the management, contrary to the provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, under Section 33A of the Act, 23 workers made a complaint before the Industrial Tribunal, which was registered as Industrial Disputes Nos. 50, 53 and 58 of 1959.

3. The main grievance of the workers concerned, as I mentioned earlier, was that their discharge was contrary to the provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

4. There is no controversy, and it is also mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, that in I. D. 20/1958, which was pending at about the relevant time, the issues referred were :

(a) Whether there was any change in the conditions of service of the workmen employed in the press section of the company; and

(b) Whether they are entitled to get the strike wages?

5. The services of the workmen concerned appear to have been terminated between the period 23-6-59 and 15-7-1959. Industrial Dispute No. 20/58 itself was referred for adjudication on 17-3-1958, and the award therein was sent to the State Government on 16-12-59.

6. The management took up the position that there has been no violation of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act, on two grounds, namely, that the workmen concerned cannot be considered to be workmen who are concerned in the industrial dispute which was pending and, secondly, that the action by way of termination of services of the workmen concerned was taken by the management on the basis of a decision by the Coir Industrial Relations Council.

7. The Industrial Tribunal, has ultimately come to the conclusion, that so far as the first contention of the management is concerned, it cannot be accepted. According to the Tribunal, the workmen who had filed the complaint under Section 33A of the Act, are workmen who are concerned in the main dispute, viz., I. D. 20/58 and that, therefore, they are entitled to make the complaint under Section 33, if they are otherwise able to satisfy that there has been a violation of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act.

8. But, so far as the actual termination of the services of the workmen is concerned, the Tribunal took the view that the termination of the services of those workmen will not be attracted by Section 33(1) (a) of the Act. I will be referring to the relevant provisions a little later.

9. So far as this aspect is concerned, the Tribunal takes the view that the termination or the services of the workmen simpliciter cannot certainly be considered to be an alteration of the conditions of service of the workmen concerned, either under Section 33(1)(a) or 33(2)(a). An attempt also appears to have been made by the workmen concerned, based upon the provisions of Section 33(2)(b), that this being a case of discharge, action can be taken by the management only with the approval of the Tribunal concerned, as provided by the proviso to Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act.

10. Here again, the Tribunal was not prepared to accept the case of the workmen, because it is of the view that the discharge contemplated under Section 33 (2) (b) must be a discharge for misconduct. The Tribunal proceeds on the plea set up by the workmen themselves, and has come to the conclusion that the termination of the services or discharge of the workmen in this case, was not due to any misconduct, in which case alone the provisions of Section 33 (2) (b) will stand attracted. Therefore, the Tribunal is of the view that the complaint made by the workmen concerned, under Section 33A of the Act, is unsustainable and untenable, a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document