Authority under S.33(2)(b) IDA cannot re-appreciate evidence; limited to prima facie case and compliance review.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 13.03.2024 in A.P. No.223 of 2022, whereby the approval petition filed by the petitioner Corporation under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act came to be rejected.

2. The case of the petitioner Corporation is that the 2^nd respondent was employed as a driver. While he was on duty on 05.06.2022 at about 6.10 p.m., passengers noticed that he was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner under the influence of alcohol. Due to the alarming manner of driving, the passengers compelled the 2^nd respondent to stop the vehicle and took him to the Government Hospital for medical examination. At that time, the bus was stationed on the road and a crowd had gathered and videographed the incident. The medical examination conducted by the Government Hospital confirmed that the 2^nd respondent had consumed alcohol. A certificate to that effect was issued and marked as Ex.P2. Further, it is stated that the 2nd respondent had also paid a fine before the law enforcing agency, which was marked as Ex.P3.

3. In view of the above misconduct, which amounted to violation of standing orders, the petitioner Corporation issued a charge memo dated

06.06.2022. A domestic enquiry was conducted, and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges proved as against the 2^nd respondent. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued, and after considering the explanation of the 2^nd respondent, a final order dated 28.11.2022 was passed removing him from service.

4. Since an industrial dispute was pending, the petitioner Corporation filed an approval petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the 1^st respondent. However, by order dated 13.03.2024, the 1^st respondent rejected the approval petition. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation submitted that the misconduct committed by the 2^nd respondent is grave in nature, as he drove a public transport vehicle under the influence of alcohol, thereby endangering the lives of passengers and the general public. He further submitted that the petitioner had conducted a full-fledged domestic enquiry by adhering to the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer, upon appreciation of evidence, had categorically held the charges proved as against the 2^nd respondent. He further submitted that the petitioner had complied with all the mandatory requirements under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, including payment of one month wages and filing of the approval petition simultaneously. He vehemently argued that without properly appreciating the evidence and settled legal principles, the 1^st respondent has rejected the approval petition on untenable grounds.

6. He drew the attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalla Ram vs. D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd. reported in 1978 3 SCC 1 and submitted that the scope of the authority under Section 33(2)(b) is limited and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence as an appellate authority. In view of the above, he prayed that the impugned order dated 13.03.2022 issued by the 1^st respondent is liable to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent fairly submitted that the 2^nd respondent intends to work out his remedy by raising an industrial dispute under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He further submitted that in the event of this Court setting aside the impugned order, liberty may be granted to the 2^nd respondent to rai