The mandatory provision of Section 33(2) requires employers to pay full wages to a dismissed employee for one month, and failure to do so renders approval of dismissal invalid.

ORDER :

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the award, dated 19.01.2024 made in A.P.No.26 of 2012 by the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai and to quash the same.

2. The case of the petitioner management is that it is having a factory at Ichiputhur, Arakkonam, where it manufactures tyres, tubes and conveyor belts. The respondent workman was employed as a Mechanic in Engineering Department, Zone-I. Owing to his trade union activities, the respondent behaved in an indifferent way on many occasions resulting in imposition of minor punishments for low performance, stay in strike, negligence in work and unauthorised absenteeism on several occasions. While so, on 03.11.2010, while working in the second shift, the respondent came near OGTP/IGTP area along with a group of workmen and instigated the workmen in that area to stop the work and also prevented the union workmen from performing the work. The area incharge made a complaint on the same day.

3. A show-cause notice was issued on 08.11.2010 and the workman submitted an explanation on 07.12.2010 refuting the allegations.In view thereof, one J.Kumaran was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. After a full-fledged enquiry of examining the witnesses and marking documents, the Enquiry Officer, by his report, dated 17.03.2012 returned the finding holding the workman guilty of charges. A second show-cause notice, dated 28.04.2012 was issued to which the workman submitted his further explanation on 02.06.2012. After considering the same, the workman was terminated from the services by the order, dated 20.06.2012. Since a general charter of demands raised by the union was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, the management had to seek approval of the order of dismissal of the workman. As such, along with the order of dismissal, a cheque for Rs.8,181/-, representing one month wages was sent to the workman and the Approval Application was simultaneously filed before the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai.

4. The Approval Application was taken on file as A.P.No.26 of 2012. The same was resisted by the workman by filing a counter statement. During the course of the enquiry, one J.Maria Susai, was examined on behalf of the management as P.W.1 and Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-54 were marked. The workman was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-9 were marked. Thereafter, the Industrial Tribunal considered the petition as per the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Lalla Ram Vs. D.C.M.Chemical Works Ltd. (1978) 3 SCC 1, and framed five points. While it answered the point Nos.1 and 2 that the management had made out a prima facie case against the workman and that it was not due to any victimisation, while answering point No.3, it held that the amount of Rs.8,181/- paid by the management does not represent one month wages payable to the workman and therefore, answered the point No.3 in favour of the workman. It answered the point No.4 by holding that the application was simultaneously filed. Accordingly, by answering the point No.5, it held that the approval cannot be granted and dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by which, the present Writ Petition is filed.

5. According to the petitioner management, the finding of the Industrial Tribunal with reference to the point No.3 relating to one month wages is erroneous, on facts and in law and the actual monthly wage payable to the workman was only Rs.7,981.71 ps. However, a higher sum of Rs.8,181/- was paid.

6. The Writ Petition is resisted by the respondent/workman by filing a counter-affidavit. According to the workman, the amount that is