at Allahabad and the other before the Labour Court at Meerut, the appellant sent applications by post on the same day to the two authorities for approval of the action taken, namely, the dismissal of the respondent.
Therefore as the application in this case was made after the dismissal, approval companyld number be granted and on this narrow ground the labour companyrt refused to approve of the dismissal of the respondent.
The respondent submitted his explanation.
Again on August 13, 1959, he refused to obey similar orders of the shift in charge.
On August 12, 1959, the respondent was given certain orders by the Technical Director of the appellant, but he refused to companyply with them.
March.
The Labour Commission, however, refused to give a decision and informed the appellant that it companyld take such action as it was entitled to under the Standing Orders.
30 of the Standing Orders, but the Labour Commissioner finally refused to pass any order and directed the appellant to take such action as it thought fit and as was within its power.
Thereupon the appellant dismissed the respondent on February 1, 1960.
The appellant again approached the Labour Commissioner for giving an order as envisaged by cl.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 29, 1960, of the Labour Court, Meerut in case No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO, J. This appeal by special leave raises the question of interpretation of s. 6 E, 2 b of the United Provinces Industrial Disputes Act, U.P. Act No.
He was then suspended and a charge sheet was served on him on August 16, 1959.
The same day the respondent refused to companyply with certain similar orders given by the machine man.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
XIV of 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act , as amended by Act 36 of 1956.
XXVIII of 1947 hereinafter called the P. Act , which is in exactly the same terms as s. 33 2 b of the Industrial Dispute, Act.,
1 of 1960.
Consequently a numberice was served on the respondent to show cause why he ,should number be dealt with under cl.
As however, two disputes were pending between the appellant and its workmen one before the Industrial Tribunal No.
It appears that the tribunal at Allahabad approved of the action on March 22, 1960.
Ranganadham Chetty, A. V. Rangam, A. Vedavalli and P. C. Agarwala, for the respondent.
387 of 1961.
The respondent was in the employ of the appellant.
The appellant is a Strawboard Mill.
Thereupon the appellant obtained special leave from this Court and that is how the matter has companye up before us.
The question arises in this way.
C. Misra, for the appellant.
30 of the Standing Orders.
After the inquiry was over the appellant referred the matter for the decision of the Labour Commissioner without giving any prior decision of its own as provided in cl.
Thereafter an inquiry was held into the alleged misconduct.
Finally, on August 14, he refused to obey similar orders of another shift in charge.
22 a of the Standing Orders which provided that wilful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful orders of superior was misconduct.
