Approval of dismissal under the Industrial Disputes Act requires simultaneous filing of petitions and payment of wages, with any delays rendering the dismissal invalid.

ORDER :

Assailing the orders in and by which the approval petitions filed by the petitioner seeking approval for the dismissal of the respective workmen came to be dismissed, the present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that it is a leading medical education institution established in the year 1996 and for catering to the needs of the medical college, 220 staffs are employed at the Medical College at Karaikal apart from contract and casual workers and 180 doctors are employed to cater to the needs of nearly 550 students and for the patients.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respective workmen were employed in the petitioner college and they were individually served with a charge sheet dated 23.12.2009 alleging acts of indiscipline, insubordination, wilful neglect of work, disobeying the orders of the superiors and also for confining the superior officer in his cabin for the entire day on 18.9.2009, which gross misconduct calls for imposition of penalty. The show cause notice was issued calling upon the workmen, viz., the respective 3^rd respondents to submit their explanation and upon receipt of the explanation and being not satisfied with the same, enquiry was ordered resulting in the submission of the report by the enquiry officer holding the charges levelled against the respective workmen as proved except a certain portion of the charge, as mentioned in the report.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that a further show cause was issued on 9.8.2010 along with the enquiry report calling upon the respective workmen to submit their explanation as to why the enquiry report should not be accepted and major penalty be imposed. It is the further case of the petitioner that written explanation was submitted by the workmen stating that they are protected workmen as defined u/s 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’) in the pending I.D. No.14/2009 before the Industrial Tribunal and submitted that the petitioner is barred from imposing any penalty.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that after carefully analyzing the written explanation, the petitioner, by a detailed speaking order, dismissed the respective workmen from service by payment of one month wages through cheque dated 30.09.2010 in lieu of order of dismissal. Since the workmen refused to receive the same in person and persuasion did not yield any result, the petitioner sent the same through registered post to the residential address of the respective workmen.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that approval petitions were filed seeking approval for the dismissal of the respective workmen and the workmen were examined before the Tribunal and they did not raise any allegation of bias or violation in the enquiry and also submitted that one month wages was paid through cheque dated 30.09.2010, which the respective workmen refused to receive.

7. Inspite of the evidence of the respective workmen coupled with the