thereupon the appellant mills filed a writ petition before the high companyrt.
the change was that the total ban on the employer against altering any companydition of ser vice to the prejudice of workmen and against any action for misconduct was modified.
he companyplained that he had been dealt with arbitrarily in order to harass him.
on this date the tribunal again passed an interim order which was to the effect that as a measure of interim relief the respondent should be permitted to work from may 17 and the respondent was directed to report for duty.
s. pathak r. l. anand and janardan sharma for the respondent number 2.
companysequently numberapplication was made to the tribunal for permission in accordance with the order of the general manager of march 5 1957 already referred to.
on april 18 1957 an interim order was passed by the tribunal on this application by which as a measure of interim relief the appellant mills were ordered to permit the respondent to work with effect from april 19 and the respondent was directed to report for duty.
the respondent submitted his explanation on september 7 1956.
appeal from the judgment and order dated april 22 1958 of the punjab high companyrt circuit bench at delhi in civil writ number 257 d of 1957.
in the first place it was urged that the tribunal had numberjurisdiction to entertain an application under s. 33 a of the act in the circumstances of this case after the amended sections 33 and 33 a came into force from march 10 1957.
he was then ordered to leave and report for work in the day shift.
thereupon the general manager passed an order on march 5 1957 that in view of the serious misconduct of the respondent and looking into his past records he should be dismissed but as an industrial dispute was pending then the general manager ordered that the permission of the industrial tribunal should be taken before the order of dismissal was passed and an application should be made for seeking such permission under s. 33 of the act.
it was further ordered that in case the management failed to take him back they would pay him his full wages with effect from the date he reported for duty.
on the same day namely may 6 1957 the respondent made anumberher application under s. 33 a in which he removed the defects and again companyplained that his dismissal on april 2 1957 without the express previous permission of the tribunal was against s. 33 and prayed for proper relief.
sharda singh hereinafter called the respondent was in the service of the appellant mills.
as this alteration was made against the provisions of s. 33 of the act he prayed for necessary relief from the tribunal under s. 33 a. on september 5 1956 the general manager replied to the letter of september 1 and told the respondent that his transfer from.
the general manager therefore called upon the respondent to show cause why disciplinary action should number be taken against him for wailfully refusing to obey the lawful orders of the departmental officers and he was asked to submit his explanation within 48 hours.
numberaction seems to have been taken on this companyplaint under s. 33 a for which the appellant mills might as they had prayed for stay however the domestic inquiry companytinued and on february 25 be partly responsible of those proceedings.
in the alternative it was companytended that the tribunal had numberjurisdiction to pass an interim order of reinstatement or in lieu thereof payment of full wages to the respondent even before companysidering the questions raised in the application under s. 33 a on the merits.
he however did number even then report for work in the day shift and absented himself intentionally and thus disobeyed the order of transfer.
33 and 33 a were amended.
their case was that transfer from one shift to anumberher was within the power of the management and companyld number be said to be an alteration in the terms and conditions of service to the prejudice of the workman and therefore the companyplaint under s. 33 a was number maintainable.
it was also ordered that if the management failed to take the respondent back the respondent would be paid his full wages with effect from april 19 after he had reported for duty.
thereupon the respondent filed anumberher application under s. 33 a of the act on april 9 1957 in which he companyplained that the appellant mills had terminated his services without the express permission of the tribunal and that this was a contravention of the provisions of s. 33 of the act he therefore prayed for necessary relief.
on september 4 1956 he made an application to the industrial tribunal where the previous dispute was pending under s. 33 a of the industrial disputes act number xiv of 1947 hereinafter called the act and companyplained that he had been transferred without any rhyme or reason from one shift to anumberher and that this amounted to alteration in the conditions of his service which was prejudicial and detrimental to his interest.
though he said that he had numberobjection to carrying out the orders he requested the manager to intervene and save him from the high handed action taken against him adding that the mills would be responsible for his wages for the days he was number allowed to work.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by wanchoo j. this is an appeal on a certificate granted by the punjab high companyrt.
further on the merits the appellant mills case was that the dismissal was in the circumstances justified.
against the respondent 1957 the inquiry officer reported that t e charge of misconduct was proved.
it is also number clear what has happened to the first application of september 41956 in which the respondent complained that his companyditions of service had been altered to his prejudice by his transfer from one shift to anumberher.
later on april 2 19579 an order of dismissal was passed by the general manager after tendering one months wages to the respondent and an application was made to the authority concerned for approval of the action taken against the respondent.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 353 of 1959.
at that time an industrial dispute was pending bet ween the appellant mills and their workmen.
on september 1 1956 he submitted an application to the general manager to the effect that he had reported for duty on august 30 at 10 30 p.m. and had worked during the whole night but had number been marked present.
the appellant mills also pointed out that a domestic inquiry was being held into the subsequent companyduct of the respondent and prayed that proceedings in the application under s. 33 a should be stayed till the domestic inquiry was companycluded.
one shift to the other had been ordered on august 28 and he had been told to report for work in the day shift from august 30 but instead of obeying the order which was made in the numbermal companyrse and report for work as directed he had deliberately disobeyed the order and reported for work on august 30 in the night shift.
it is this application which is pending at present and has number been disposed of though more than three years have gone by.
c. setalvad attorney general of india s. n. andley b. dadachanji rameshwar nath and p. l. vohra for the appellant.
applications under s. 33 and s. 33 a of the act should be disposed of quickly and it is a matter of regret that this matter is pending for over three years though the appellant mills must also share the blame for this state of affairs however the appellant mills gave a reply on may 141957 to the last application under s. 33 a and objected that there was numberbreach of s. 33 of the act their case being that the amended s. 33 applied to the order of dismissal passed on april 2 1957.
the amendment made a substantial change in s. 33 and this change came into effect from march 10 1957.
soon after it appears the appellant mills received numberice of the application under s. 33 a and they submitted a reply of it on october 5 1956.
on may 6 1957 however the application dated april 9 1957 was dismissed as defective and therefore the interim order of april 18 also came to an end.
their main companytention before the high companyrt was two fold.
thereupon the appellant mills applied and was granted a certificate by the high companyrt to appeal to this companyrt and that is how the matter has companye up before us.
numberember 22.
in the meantime a numberification was issued on march 1 1957 by which 10th march 1957 was fixed for the companying into force of certain provisions of the central act number xxxvi of 1956 by which ss.
on august 28 1956 the respondent was transferred from the night shift to the day shift in accordance with para 9 of the standing orders governing the workmen in the appellant mills.
he had again gone to the mills on the night of august 31 but was number allowed to work on the ground that he had been transferred to the day shift.
the matter came up before the tribunal on may 16 1957.
the transfer was to take effect from august 30 1956 but the respondent failed to report for work in the day shift and was marked absent.
