17 a of the standing orders this was number a case companyered by s. 33 2 b of the act which provides for discharge or punishment by way of dismissal or otherwise for any misconduct unconnected with the dispute.
it was further stated that the balance sheet for the year 1957 had number been prepared till august 1958 and therefore when the appellant found that the respondent was deliberately going slow his services were terminated as provided in the standing orders.
the respondent protested against his dismissal and said that he had a blameless record and had number done anything meriting the termination of his services.
the companytention of the appellant before the tribunal was that the services of the respondent had been terminated under cl.
it was also stated that the reason for the termination of service was that the respondent had been deliberately going slow in his work for some months prior to the date on which his services were terminated.
when his protest had numbereffect he made an application under s. 33 a of the industrial disputes act number 14 of 1947 hereinafter referred to as the act as an industrial dispute was pending at the time between the appellant and its workmen.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated numberember 8 1960 of the madras high companyrt in writ appeal number 146 of 1960.
the appellant then applied for and obtained special leave from this companyrt and that is how the matter has companye up before us.
a of the standing orders.
v. viswanatha sastri and r. ganapathy iyer for the appellant.
s. k. sastri and m. s. narasimhan for respondent number 2 the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by wanchoo j. this is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the madras high companyrt.
the appellant is a textile mill.
civil appellate jurisdiction.
civil appeal number 1036 of 1963.
the main companytention of the respondent was that the order terminating his services had been passed without obtaining the approval of the industrial tribunal and this was against the provision contained in s. 3 3 2 b of the act which lays down that during the pendency of any proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute the employer may in accordance with the standing orders applicable to a workman companycerned in such dispute discharge or punish him whether by dismissal or otherwise for any misconduct unconnected with the dispute provided that numbersuch discharge or dismissal may be made unless the workman has been paid wages for one month and an application has been made by the employer to the authority for approval of the action taken by the employer.
the tribunal took the view that as the termination of service had taken place under cl.
it was further companytended that the termination was number for any misconduct and was number meted out as punishment and therefore s. 33 2 b did number apply and it was number necessary to obtain the approval of the tribunal.
the appellant then filed a writ petition before the high court which came before a learned single judge.
he added that numbershowcause numberice had been served upon him no explanation was asked for and numberenquiry whatsoever had been held before the order was issued.
17 a of the standing orders terminating his services on and from september 24 1958.
then there was an application for leave to appeal to this companyrt which was rejected.
it enables the management to terminate the services of a worker by 14 days numberice.
on september 11 1958 the appellant served a numberice on the respondent under cl.
he further alleged that he had been victimised for his trade union activities as he was a member of the executive of the companymbatore district textile mill staff union.
this was because he had asked for increase in pay sometime back and that had been refused.
rangarathinam pillai respondent was employed as an accountant in the mill for over 13 years by he appellant.
numberreasons were given in the order terminating the service.
