Termination of employment deemed punitive requires prior permission under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was not obtained, rendering the termination illegal.

ORDER :

(D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.)

A.The Writ Petition:

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the common order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, dated 15.04.2004 in Complaint Nos.38,39 and 42 of 1997. By the said order, the complaints filed under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter 'the ID Act') by the three workmen were dismissed.

B.Case of the Workmen:

2. The case of the three workmen who have filed the present writ petition is that all the three workmen were originally appointed as temporary workers in the year 1985-86, thereafter they were again taken in as apprentices for a meagre salary and in the year 1987 -1989, their services were confirmed. The management floated a puppet union and forced the workmen to join the said Union. On 22.09.1992, the management alleged various misconducts against the workmen and letters were sent to 176 workmen directing them to give an undertaking that they would not indulge in intimidation, coercion, or assault against fellow workers. Of the said 176 workmen 105 executed the undertaking. In respect of the balance of 71 employees, an individual lockout was announced.

2.1. A dispute was raised in respect of the same and conciliation failed. The matter was referred for adjudication by the Tribunal and the same was taken on file as I.D. No. 11 of 1994. Of the 71 workmen 58 workmen entered into individual settlements with the management and only 13 workmen which included the three petitioners herein, remained in the dispute. On 07/10/1996, a memo was filed by the Secretary of the Trade Union to withdraw the claim petition. However, the same was opposed by the President as well as the present workman upon which the same was dismissed by the Tribunal. While so, by invoking clause 27 of the Standing Orders, the petitioners herein were terminated from service. Since the termination was done without any prior permission or approval, the present complaints under Section 33 A of the ID Act were filed.

2.2. Thereafter, the secretary filed W.P. No. 975 of 1997 against the dismissal of his prayer to withdraw the claim and by an order dated 03.06.1999 the same was allowed. Pursuant to the said order, the ID was dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 28.07.1999. A writ appeal was filed in W.A. No. 1518 of 1999, which was allowed, with liberty to the individual workmen to proceed in accordance with law. On further appeal in SLP No. 23840 of 2010, the said order was confirmed while the observations were expunged.

C.Case of the Management:

3. The case of the management is that when the workman indulged in vandalism and misconduct, individual lock-out notices were issued to 176 workmen in the year 1992. Thereafter, on 28.09.1992, the management issued a notice seeking an undertaking from the workmen. 105 out of 176 submitted the undertaking. The remaining workmen raised a dispute through the Union in I.D. No. 11 of 1994. Of the 71, 62 resolved their disputes by entering into 18(1) settlements. Six out of the nine remaining workmen were terminated from service in connection with another incident involving the assault of a co-worker. While so, on 22/12/1995, the Union filed a memo to withdraw I.D. No. 11 of 1994. Since the retention of the three remaining workmen, being the petitioners herein, became impracticable and unworkable, by invoking Clause 27 of the Standing Orders, their services were terminated. The complaint was further resisted on the ground that Section 33 of the ID Act is not attracted as the instant