The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Tribunal has the authority to consider the fairness of the domestic enquiry and the victimization of the concerned workman while granting approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

JUDGMENT :

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

1. The award dated 24.12.1997 passed in Industrial Misc. Case No. 55/97(53/94) by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela is under challenge whereby and where under approval required under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has not been accorded to the order of dismissal passed against the workman and accordingly the Misc. Case has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the workman, for the purpose of getting appointment, has submitted forged matriculation examination certificate and forged school leaving certificate, the authority after knowing this fact has charge sheeted him under clause 28(iv) and 28(xxviii) of the certified standing orders of the company. The workman has submitted explanation to the charge sheet, having been found unsatisfactory the competent authority had constituted an enquiry committee to enquire into the charge which was enquired into adhering to the principles of natural justice. During enquiry, the workman admitted the charge voluntarily. After conclusion of the enquiry the enquiry committee submitted its report to the disciplinary authority holding the charge as established against the workman, copy of the enquiry proceeding and copy of the finding thereof were given to the workman. The disciplinary authority confirmed the said finding and held that the workman deserves to be removed from service of the company, while doing so the disciplinary authority also examined past service records of the workman with a view to find out if there were any extenuating circumstances in his favour but could not find any such material. In such circumstances, the disciplinary authority passed order of dismissal of the workman from service with effect from 13.8.1994 as a disciplinary measure under Order 29(2)(d) of the certified sanding orders of the company.

The petitioner-management has paid one month wages as required under proviso to section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 13.8.1994 through money orders and since the workman is a concerned workman in I.D. Case No. 25 of 1990 pending disposal of the before the Industrial Tribunal, petition was filed for approval of the action taken by the management against the workman.

3. The Tribunal after going through the materials produced before it has not accorded approval of the order of dismissal passed against the workman. The Tribunal has given reasons for not according approval in the award impugned that the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna has found the certificate not genuine as well as also the School Leaving Certificate issued by the school concerned, since the authority who has issued Ext.9 i.e. letter of the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, Ext.10 is the letter of the Joint Secretary by which it has been intimated that the mark sheet was a forged one and the authority who has stated that the school leaving certificate is not genuine is not called upon in course of domestic enquiry to prove the documents and thereby the workman has not been provided with adequate opportunity to cross-examine them.

4. Learned counsel representing the management has assailed the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal is only suppose to see requirement of the conditions mentioned in the proviso to section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act and that is the condition since been complied with by the management, hence the Tribunal ought to have accorded approval and by no doing so the Tribunal has erred in passing the award.

While on the other hand learned counsel representing the workman has submitted that although statute provides that the conditions mentioned in proviso to section 33(2)(b) of the Act is to be followed before according approval of the order of dismissal but it is not a fact that the Tribunal will accept the enquiry report without applying its mind otherwise there will be no meaning of getting approval from the Tribunal in co