Bhandari, J.—This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying that a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction or order be issued against Respondent No. 1, the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, after quashing his order dated the 7th of January, 1958, directing him to decide the application made by the petitioners under sec. 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) in accordance with law.

2. The petitioners own and manage several manufacturing factories, one of which is the Lakheri Cement Works at Lakheri in the State of Rajasthan. Shri Hariprasad Respondent No. 2. was a workman employed in the petitioners works at Lakheri as C Grade Electrician in the Electrical Department. On the 29th of June, 1957, Respondent No. 2 was served with a charge-sheet for the various act of misconducts alleged to have been committed by him during the period from the 11th of May, 1957 to the 27th of June, 1957. He was suspended on the 29th June, 1957. It is stated in the writ petition that a full-fledge enquiry was held against him on the 3rd of July, and 17th of July, 1957, and as result of such enquiry Respondent No. 2 was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. By the order dated the 18th of July, 1957, Respondent No. 2 was dismissed with effect from the 29th of June, 1957. Respondent No. 2 was further asked to collect his dues from the Companys Cash Office on or after the 20th of July, 1957. An application dated 29th July, 1957, under sec. 33(2)(b) of the Act was also despatched to Respondent No. 1 on 19th August, 1957, and it was received by the Tribunal on the 26th of August 1957. On this application, notice was given by Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No. 2, who submitted a written reply. It appears that certain preliminary objection, which we need not mention, as they are not material for the purpose of this writ petition, were taken on behalf of Respondent No 2. During the course of proceeding Respondent No. 1 suo-moto raised two points regarding the non-maintainability of the application. The first point was that Respondent No. 2 was not paid wages for one month prior to or simultaneously with the order of dismissal and the second was that the application under sec.33(2)(b) was not made to the Tribunal prior to or simultaneously with the order of dismissal. By his order dated the 7th of Jan., 1958, which is challenged by the writ petition, Respondent No. 1 over-ruled the other contentions raised by respondent No. 2 but held that the petitioner had committed breaches of the provisions of sec. 33(2)(b) inasmuch as the wages for one month were not paid and so also the application required to be made under the proviso to that sub-section was not made prior to or simultaneously with the order of dismissal. He expressed the view that it was extremely doubtful that order under sec. 33(2)(b) could be passed so as to operate retrospectively from the date of suspension of Respondent No. 2. He further held that the application for approval was not made within a reasonable time. On the point of the payment of one months wages, the petitioners had submitted an affidavit on behalf of the Company that in pursuance of the dismissal order a voucher for the dues of Respondent No. 2 including one months wages payable under sec. 33(2; of the Act was possible material for arriving at a finding on the good faith or otherwise of the employers in an appropriate case. But the dismissal of the application by the Tribunal for approval of the action taken by the employers without any investigation and a finding thereon as to whether the order of dismissal was prima facie justified or not and whether it had been arrived at after a fair enquiry into the conduct of the employee concerned is, a patent error in the exercise of its legitimate jurisdiction on the part of the Tribunal and is sufficient to attract the Certiorari jurisdiction of this Court. (Paras 7 &8) prepared on the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document