The police staff also go for checking and if a watchman is found absent or indulging in undesirable activities he in withdrawn even without the companysent of the owner.
Appeal by special leave from the award dated September 2, 1960, of the Industrial Tribunal Maharashtra at Bombay in Complaint I. T. No.
It is against this order that the appellant has companye to .his Court by special leave.
At the place of duty one senior watchman its asked to supervise the work of watchmen.
In other words, his case was that his discharge was in companytravention of the provisions of s. 33 and that is the basis of his application under a. 33 A. The appellant denied that the respondent was its employee.
523 of 1961.
If the D.S.P. companyes to know that the watchmans duty in number satisfactory he can withdraw him.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
R. Choudhri, for the respondent.
The respondent urged that at the time when this order of discharge was orally served on him, an industrial dispute was pending between the appellant and its employees before an Industrial Tribunal and as such the respondent companyld number be discharged by the appellant without obtaining the approval of the Industrial Tribunal.
The Judgment of the companyrt was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. The respondent Bibawe made an application to the Industrial Tribunal at Bombay under a, 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
On May 15,1960, the Security Officer of the appellant Company intimated to him that he had been discharged from service with effect from that date.
July 31.
He alleged that be had been employed by the appellant M s. Kirloskar Oil Engines, Limited, as a watchman since July 21, 1958, and that he bad been working as such watchman with the appellant and had become its permanent workman.
A Jamadar is posted at the Police Station and he supervises over all the watchmen employed.
38 of 1960.
N. Shroff, for the appellants.
