The first respondent was a workman employed as an operator in the undertaking of the appellant from 1st March, 1970 and he was in receipt of Rs.
The facts giving rise to the two appeals are almost identical and it would, therefore, be sufficient if we set out the facts of only one of the two appeals, namely Civil Appeal No.
1375 of 1977.
The Labour Court accordingly allowed the application of the 1st respondent and directed the appellant to pay an aggregate sum of Rs.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 14 2 77 of the Addl.
100/ per month as salary which would have been raised to Rs.
LC 3 1976.
1375 and 1384 of 1977 after obtaining special leave from this Court.
The appellant did hot respond to this demand of the 1st res pondent, whereupon the 1st respondent made an application to the labour Court under section 33C 2 for determination and payment of the amount of wages due to the 1st respondent from the date of suspension, on the ground that the appellant number having obtained the approval of the Industrial Tribunal to the dismissal of the list respondent under section 3 3 2 b , the order of dismissal was void and the 1st respondent companytinued to be in service and was entitled to receive his wages from the appellant.
AND Civil Appeal No.
6262.80 in respect of arrears of wages upto the same date.
115/ per month from 1st August, 1972 if he had companytinued in service with the appellant.
for the intervener in CA 2820 , Anand Prakash, H. K. Puri Lakshmi Anand Prakash for the appellants in all the appeals and applicant intervener M s. Hindustan Copper Ltd. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal, Y. J. Francis Aruneshwar Gupta for the respondents applicant intervener Shri N. K. Saxena.
But on 21st December, 1971 the 1st respondent was suspended by the appellant and a chargesheet was served upon him and before any inquiry on the basis of this charge sheet companyld be held, another chargesheet was given to him on 17th April, 1973.
This was followed by a regular inquiry and ultimately the appellant, finding the 1st respondent guilty, dismissed him from ,service by an order dated 23rd December, 1974.
The application was resisted by the 1st respondent, but before it came up for hearing, the appellant applied to the Indus trial Tribunal for withdrawing the application and the Industrial Tribunal thereupon made an order on 4th September, 1976 dismissing the application as withdrawn.
2820 of 1977.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI, J., These two appeals by special leave raises a short but interesting question of law relating to the interpretation of sections 33 2 b and 33 c 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Thereinafter referred to as the Act .
The 1 st respondent then demanded from the appellant full wages from the date of his suspension till the date of demand companytending that as the action of the appellant dismissing the 1st respondent was number approved by the Industrial Tribunal, the 1st respondent companytinued to be in service and was entitled to all the emoluments.
Labour Tribunal Chandigarh in I.D. Case No.
The appellant thereupon preferred Civil Appeals Nos.
6485.48 to the 1st respondent on account of arrears of wages upto 30th September, 1976.
The Labour Court rejected the companytention of the appellant and held that since a reference in regard to an Industrial dispute between the appellant and its workmen was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, it was number companypetent to the appellant to pass an order of dismissal against the 1st respondent unless the action so taken was approved by the Industrial Tribunal under section 33 2 b , and companysequently, the appellant having withdrawn the application for approval under section 3 3 2 b and the approval of the Industrial Tribunal to the order of dismissal number having been obtained, the order of dismissal was ineffective and the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain the applica tion of the 1st respondent under section 33C 2 and to direst the appellant to pay the arrears of wages to the 1st respondent.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 4th November, 1977 of the Rajasthan Tribunal Court in C.A. No.
Similarly and on identical facts, the Labour Court also allowed the application of another workman and directed the appellant to pay to him a sum of Rs.
66 67/76 respectively.
The appellant resisted this application under section 33C 2 inter alia on the ground that the application under section 3 3 2 b having been withdrawn the position was as if numberapplication had been made at all with the result that there was companytravention of section 33 2 b , but such companytravention did number render the order of dismissal void ab initio and it was merely illegal and unless it was set aside in an appropriate proceeding taken by the 1st respondent section 33A or in a reference under section 10, the Labour Court had numberjurisdiction under section 3 3C 2 to direct payment of wages to the 1st respondent on the basis that he companytinued in service and the application made by the 1st respondent was accordingly incompetent.
Soli Sorabjee Addl.
