1 was returned undelivered on 8th January 1968.
The workmen filed a written statement raising some preliminary objections, but in para 3 of the written statement, it was alleged by them that the so called enquiry was companypleted on December 30, 1967, and the report was submitted on the same day.
On the 18th December, 1947, the respondent workmen were charge sheeted for certain acts of misconduct.
Thereupon the workmen were ordered to be dismissed with immediate effect on January 4, 1968.
An application for the approval of the order of dismissal was submitted before the Honble companyrt on 8.1.1968.
The only companytention of the mills was that since the order companyld number be effective until served on the workmen, they moved the application simultaneously with the service of the order on them i.e. on the 8th January 1968.
Pursuant to the order of the manager, dismissal orders were issued to the respondents on January 4, 1968, by registered post.
That application was dismissed.
Notices were also sent by registered post to their addresses which were returned undelivered.
After the hearing but before the announcement of the judgment a petition was moved inviting our attention to certain admissions made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents which was part of the record of this Court.
The respondent workmen companyld number be served on them, the respondents came to the mils on January 8, 1968, when they were actually served and they received the amount of one Months pay.
Copies of those letters were posted on the numberice board, and the mills also published in a local daily newspaper Rashtradoot in its issue of December 24, 1967, a numberice to the respondents, informing them that the enquiry would be held on December 30, 1967, with regard to the charges preferred against them.
Since they were number available for service, companyies of the charge sheet were forwarded to their addresses by registered post on December 20, 1967.
These letters were, however, returned undelivered on January 8, 1968.
The companyies were also affixed on the numberice board of the mills.
The application for approval of the dismissal of the workmen, was made before the Tribunal on January 25, 1968 and one months wages as required under the Act, were given to the workmen only on February 2, 1968.
However, the charge sheet, which was sent by registered post to the other respondent, was delivered to him on December 23, 1967.
It is unnecessary to refer to the pleas taken on the other matters.
He were of the view that these documents companyld number be relied upon as there was numberhing to indicate that they had been admitted into evidence.
On that very day, letters were issued to the respondents fixing the date of enquiry on the 30th December 1967.
On January 8, 1968, the appellant mills forwarded an application under Section 33 2 b of the Act to the Industrial Tribunal for approval of the action.
It is wholly incorrect that the workmen was ordered to be dismissed with effect from 4.1.68, or that the application for the approval of the dismissal of the workmen was made before the Honble Tribunal on 25 1 1968.
1 and 2 herein without any protest.
The registered companyer companytaining the dismissal order in respect of respondent No.
The respondents did number present themselves for enquiry before the enquiry officer who proceeded to hold it in their absence on December 30, 1967 The enquiry officer submitted his manager of the mills, and he passed an order directing the dismissal of the respondents.
The charge sheet posted to respondent 1 was returned undelivered on or about the 24th December 1967.
A rejoinder was filed by the mills and it is necessary to set out the reply to para 3 of the written statement of the workmen That the companytents of para 3 are number admitted as stated.
In the application, which was filed under Section 33 2 b of the Act, after setting out some of the facts that have been already mentioned, it was stated in para 11 that a voucher for an amount equivalent to each of the opposite partys one months wages had been sent along with the dismissal order under Clause b of Sub section 2 of Section 33 of the Act.
This companytention appears to be based on what is stated in para 5 of the petition for special leave, which is reproduced below Pursuant to the order of the Manager, dismissal orders against the respondents were issued on 4th January 1968 Since the respondents were number available to the mills for personal service of the dismissal orders, the orders were forwarded to them by registered post A.D. on 5th January 1968.
2 was companycerned, the registered companyer companytaining the dismissal order was returned undelivered on 8th January 1968.
Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from an order of the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, dismissing the application of the appellant mills under Section 33 2 b of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act and refusing to accord approval to the dismissal of the workmen companycerned.
