The court ruled that S.33(2) applies to all employers and workmen in an industrial dispute, regardless of the utility concern designation, insisting on clear compliance with statutory procedures for dismissals.

1. By an order dated 27th December 1963 an application filed by the petitioner under S.33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') for approval of the order of dismissal passed by the petitioner against Shri Samlall Kahara, a workman, was refused by the Conciliation Officer (Labour Inspector), Tinsukia. Against this order the present petition has been filed by the Management of Panitola Tea Estate. On 13-1-1962 one Ghanashyam Das, a workman in the petitioner Tea Estate was dismissed. Conciliation proceedings started on the dismissal of Ghanashyam Das on the 13th June 1963. On the 13th September 1963 a tentative settlement was made under which Ghanashyam Das was reinstated on 10-10-1963. On the 30th October 1963 the memorandum of settlement was filed before the Conciliation Officer. In the meantime on the 18th September 19B3 Samlall Kahara opposite party No. 2 to this petition who was a workman of Panitola Tea Estate, was dismissed on account of misconduct. An application was made for approval of the aforesaid order which was dismissed by the Conciliation Officer on the 27th December 1963. The order of the Conciliation Officer is impugned in this petition on various grounds.

2. The petitioner contends firstly that as the Panitola Tea Estate is not a utility concern, S.33(2) of the Act will not be applicable. S.33(2) of the Act, according to the petitioner, applies only to the cases of utility concerns. Secondly it is urged that as by 27-12-1963 the conciliation proceedings were terminated. the Conciliation Officer became Functus officio and had no power to approve or disapprove the order of dismissal passed by the Management. The order of the Conciliation Officer dated the 27th December 1963 is without jurisdiction. Thirdly it is urged that Samlall Kahara is not a workman concerned in the Conciliation proceedings pending on the dismissal of Ghanashyam Das and other workmen and thus S.33(2) will not apply. Lastly it is urged that on the merit the order is erroneous inasmuch as the Conciliation Officer had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute. He had only to find out if there was a prima facie case for dismissal established or not.

3. Apart from challenging the contentions raised by the petitioner indicated above, the opposite parties have contended that the question whether S.33(2) of the Act was attracted to the present case both on the ground that S.33 applies only to utility concerns and further that Samlall Kahara is not a workman concerned in the conciliation proceedings relating to the dismissal of Ghanashyam Das, was not taken before the Conciliation Officer and cannot be allowed to be taken here. It is also urged by the opposite parties that the petitioner himself having applied to the Conciliation Officer for approval, cannot now turn round and say that no application was maintainable under S.33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

4. As we are not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that S.33(2) is not attracted to a non - utility concern and further that no application was required under S.33(2) on the ground that Sri Samlall Kahara was not the workman concerned, it is not necessary to deal with the preliminary point raised by the opposite parties that these points cannot be allowed to be urged, as they were not taken before the Conciliation Officer.

5. The petitioner's contention is that having regard to the scheme of the Act it should be held that S.33(2) applies only to the case of a utility concern. The argument in brief is that under S.31 of the Act any employer who contravenes the provisions of S