JUDGMENT

CHANDRACHUD, CJI.:— The appellant was appointed as a Dresser in the Medical Department of the Steel Authority of India, formerly the Bokaro Steel Plant Ltd. On March 1, 1975 he was dismissed from service as a result of a domestic inquiry on charges of misconduct consisting of absence from duty, falsification of entries in the registers, destruction of records, etc. Since an industrial dispute was pending in the Labour Court, Bokaro, between the management and its workmen, an application was filed by the management under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking approval of the Labour Court, Chota Nagpur, to the order of dismissal passed against the appellant. The decision of that application was partly in favour of the appellant and partly against him. By a judgment dated November 16, 1976, the Labour Court held that (i) the domestic inquiry was invalid because, the Chief Medical Officer of Bokaro Steel Ltd. was neither competent to issue the chargesheet nor to constitute the Enquiry Committee which held the appellant guilty of the charges framed against him; but, that (ii) the management should be given an opportunity to adduce evidence to justify the order of dismissal.

2. The appellant filed a writ petition (No. CWJC 336 of 1976) against the second pan of the Labour Courts order, his contention being that the management should not be allowed to lead evidence to justify the order of dismissal. The High Court issued a Rule on that writ petition and granted stay of further proceedings in the Labour Court. The management filed a writ petition (No. CWJC 27 of 1977) against the first part of the order of the Labour Court by which it was held that the enquiry was vitiated. The High Court of Patna, Ranchi Bench, dismissed both the writ petitions by a judgment dated April 26, 1978 (Reported in 1979 Lab IC NOC 27).

3. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court which resulted in the dismissal of its writ petition, the management filed Civil Appeal No. 1682(1) of 1978 in this Court, complaining of the finding of the High Court that it was not competent to the Chief Medical Officer to chargesheet the appellant or to constitute the Enquiry Committee. The appeal was dismissed by this Court on July 23, 1980. (Reported in AIR 1980 SC 2054). The finding of the Labour Court and the High Court that the enquiry which resulted in the dismissal of the appellant was vitiated, was upheld by this Court.

4. The appellant did not appeal to this Court against the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court.

5. Since the order of the Labour Court that the management should be allowed to lead evidence in order to justify the order of dismissal was not stayed by this Court in the appeal which was filed by the management, the Labour Court called upon it to lead its evidence. The appellant filed an application objecting to the management leading the evidence but that application was dismissed by the Labour Court on August 24, 1978. Being aggrieved by that order, the appellant filed a writ petition (No. 531 of 1980) in the High Court of Patna contending that the management should not be allowed to lead evidence, especially because, instead of leading evidence in pursuance of the order of the Labour Court, it had chosen to challenge the finding that the inquiry was vitiated. The writ petition having been dismissed on February 5, 1981 by the Ranchi Bench of the High Court, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.

6. Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act provides in so far as relevant, that though, during the pendency of a proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute it is open to the employer to discharge or punish a workman for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, no such workman shall be discharged or dismissed unless an application has been made by the employer to the authority before which the proceeding is pending, for approval of the action taken against the employee. It is well-kn