Question of victimisation of employee is an important issue for being considered by Labour Court.

P. D. DINAKARAN, J.

The issue that arises for our consideration in the above writ appeal is :

"When an application is made by employer for approving the order of termination by the authority before whom industrial dispute is pending, can such authority go into the questions of victimisation and irregularities imputed on the employee while passing appropriate orders on the application, while exercising the powers conferred under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') and what would be the consequence of the orders passed by such authority either by approving or refusing to approve the order of termination made by the employer ?"

The appellant/employer (hereinafter referred to as 'employer') has made a challenge in W.P. No. 16133 of 1994 to the order of Industrial Tribunal dated 28.7.1993 made in Approval Petition No. 24 of 1991 declining to grant approval for termination of the employment of the second respondent/workman (hereinafter referred to as 'workman'), as the said approval was sought by way of an application under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Act, as an Industrial Dispute between the employer and the workman was pending at that time, before the Industrial Tribunal.

The Industrial Tribunal, re-appreciating the evidence that weighed the employer, came to the conclusion that the workman had been victimized and that the order of termination terminating the workman violates the principles of natural justice for the reason that the impugned enquiry was conducted by a subordinate to the complainant especially when the superior officer is also a witness in the case against the workmen.

Aggrieved by the same, the employer filed W.P. No. 16133 of 1994 seeking to quash the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 28.7.1993 declining to approve the order of termination under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Act and contending that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction while re-appreciating the evidence that weighed the employer for passing the order of termination and the same is not permissible within the scope and ambit of Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Act.

Per contra, the workman resisted the writ petition on the ground that there is no legal evidence to support the allegation made against the workman and therefore, while approving the order of termination, exercising the power conferred under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Act, the Tribunal was well within its jurisdiction to go into the fact whether the order of termination is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case and whether the same is justified or amounts to victimisation or unfair labour practice. In any event, it is contended that two views are possible one which favours the workman has to be given due weightage.

Learned single Judge in his order dated 13.11.1997, appreciating the contentions advanced on behalf of the employer, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the above appeal at the instance of the employer.

Heard Mr. J. Om Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. R. Aneffer Allwyn, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. Both the counsel submitted the submission made on behalf of the respective parties before the learned single Judge.

Upon the rival contentions, the issue that arise for our consideration is :

"When an application is made by the employer for approving the order of termination by the authority before whom industrial dispute is pending, can such authority go into the questions of victimisation and irregularities impugned on the employees while passing appropriate orders on the application, while exercising the powers conferred under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') and what would be the consequence of the orders passed by such authority either by approving or refusing to approve the order of termination made by the employer ?"

Issue : It is true that the Apex Court in The Lord Krishna Textile Mills v. Its Workman, 1960 SC 290 interpreting the jur