Under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Industrial Tribunal, while considering an application for approval of dismissal, has to satisfy itself that there is a prima facie case for such dismissal and that the management is not guilty of victimization or unfair labour practice.

S. K. Kapur, J.

1. By this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order of the Industrial tribunal, Delhi, dated 31 August 1964. declining to accord approval to the petitioners of the action taken by them In dismissing Ved Parkash (respondent 2 ). This order was passed by the Industrial tribunal on an application by the petitioners under Sec.33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . The petitioner-company has a factory situated at Najafgarh Road, New Delhi, and Is engaged In the printing of metal sheets. Respondent Ved Parkash was engaged by the petitioners as a lithographer In the factory, having Joined service on 1 June 1960. On three occasions charges were framed against respondent Ved Parkash. On 23 June 1962, he was charged for habitually coming late to the factory and ultimately, by an order dated 26 March 1963, he was administered a warning. He was again charesheeted on 5 July 1962, for not properly carrying out certain work en-trotted to him and after an enquiry It was ordered on 28 March 1963 that he should not be paid wages for the period of suspension from 10 September 1962 to 31 March 1963. The third charge was given to him on 7 July 1962, out of which the present proceedings arose. After an enquiry he was ordered to be dismissed from 1 April 1963, and the application for approval under Sec.33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act was made by the petitioners In view of the pendency of Industrial Dispute No.326 of 1962 before the tribunal.

2. One more fact which needs mention Is that for the suspension period of July and August 1962, respondent Ved Parkash made an application for recovery of wages before the Payment of Wages Authority. He made another application before the same authority for payment of wages for the period from 1 September 1962 to 31 March 1963, and the said authority paused an order in favour of respondent Ved Parkash directing payment of wages for that period. The tribunal thought that the two previous chargesheets dated 23 June 1962 and 5 July 1962, would have a bearing on the present case and he, therefore, decided to examine the parties and, accordingly, Eeshav Datt, enquiry officer and a director of the petitioner-company, as well as Ved Parka ah (respondent 2), were examined by it on 22 July 1964. The reply to the application under Sec.33 (2) (6) of the Industrial Disputes Act was filed by respondent Ved Parkash on 20 May 1963, and on 5 September 1963, he made another application for amendment of the reply whereby he sought to Include an additional plea, namely, that he having already been punished with a fine of Rs.100 In connation with the charge-sheet dated 7 July 1962 he could not be punished by die missal again. This plea was based on the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner-company by Keshav Datt, enquiry officer, In the above-mentioned proceeding before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act. In the said written statement,, a plea appears to have been taken by the petitioner-company that respondent Ved Parkash had been twice punished with a penalty of Bs.100 each time and that penalty was still recoverable. The object of this allegation in the written statement must have been to enable the petitioner-company to claim a set-off against the money claimed by respondent Ved Parkash. It appears from the impugned order that Keshav Datt maae a categorical statement that he never recommended punishment of fine In any of the enquiries, but admitted the abovementloned written Btatement having been filed before the authority constituted under the Payment of Wages Act. He further stated that the paragraph relating to the imposition of penalty was wrong and sought to explain It on the ground that this was dictated by the advocate of the petitioner-company and he signed It without realizing the Implications of the statement. The tribunal, inter alia, held;

It is clear from these statements that a Mae plea was admittedly taken by Sri Keshav Datt, enqu