though he did number accept them.
He, however.,
These grounds were companysidered by the Labour Court and all of them were substantially decided against the appellant.
Further as to the charge that the Station Manager was biased and therefore there was violation of the principles of natural justice, the Labour Court was of the view that the companytention of the appellant that the Station Manager was biased against him because of the evidence he had given in the customs case companyld number be brushed aside lightly.
It appears that the order of dismissal was companymunicated to the appellant on May 30, and one months wages were also tendered to him.
The appellant was dismissed on May 28, 1960 by the Regional Representative the order of dismissal provided for payment of one months wages to the appellant and also stated that an application was being made before the First Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, for approval of the action taken, apparently as some industrial dispute was pending before that tribunal.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated June 22, 1961, of the Second Labour Court, West Bengal in Case No.
companytended that he was over worked and further that it was the duty of others also to check the load sheet and balance chart prepared by him.
The appellant gave his reply to the chargesheet on April 26 1960 in which he admitted the mistakes that had been made.
The appellant objected to the inquiry being held by Station Manager on the ground that the Station Manager was biased against him on account of the evidence which he had given against the Station Manager in a customs case which was partly responsi ble for the infliction of a fine on the Station Manager.
It further held that the case was number companyered by s. 33 1 of the Act and it was number necessary to obtain the precious permission of the tribunal before dismissing the appellant.
9th May 1960 was fixed for inquiry by the Station Manager.
In particular, dealing with the various points raised on behalf of the appellant, the Labour Court held that the application under s. 33 2 b of the Act was validly made even though it had been made after the order of dismissal had been passed.
The same day the respondent filed an application before the First Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, seeking approval of the action.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In the present case the order of dismissal was passed by the Regional Representative on May 28, 1960 and was companymunicated to the appellant on May 30th.
Thereafter it appears that the Station Manager forwarded his findings and recommendations to the Regional Representative of the respondent company.
had made mistakes in the preparation of a load sheet on one day and a balance chart on another day, which mistakes might have led to a serious accident to the aircraft.
On June 3, 1960, the appellant made an application under s. 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act NO.XIV of 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act , challenging the legality of the action taken on a large number of grounds.
The charge sheet companytained two charges of gross dereliction of duty inasmuch as the appellant.
His objection was however over ruled and the inquiry was held by the Station Manager and companypleted on May 10, 1960.
97/33A of 1960.
419 of 1962.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO J. This appeal by special leave challenges the order of the Second Labour Court, West Bengal, relating to the dismissal of the appellant, who was in the service of the respondent companypany.
K. Dephtary, Solicitor General of India and L. Anand for the respondent.
February 15.
N. Keswani, for the appellant.
The wages were offered to the appellant at the same time when the order was companymunicated to him.,
A charge sheet was issued to the appe llant on April 23, 1960 under the signature of the Station Manager of the respondent company.
It also held that the appellant was number a protected workman.
