The Company has preferred the present appeal against this order under Art.
Against that order, the Company appealed to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which by its order dated October 19, 1954, affirmed the decision of the Provincial Industrial Court, and dismissed the appeal.
The respondent preferred a revision against this order to the Provincial Industrial Court ,under a. 16 5 of the Act, and by its order dated February 5, 1954, that Court held that a dismissed employee was an employee as defined in s. 2 10 of the Act, that a dispute by such an employee was an industrial dispute within s. 2 12 of the Act,.
The Assistant Labour Commissioner, before whom the matter came up for hearing, agreed with this companytention, and dismissed the application.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 19, 1954 of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India at Bombay in Appeal No.
and that the application under s. 16 2 of the Act was therefore maintainable.
In the result, the order of dismissal was set aside and the matter remanded for enquiry on the merits.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 320 of 1955.
On the application of the respondent, the record has been suitably amended.
1 and 2 of the Act, and that, in companysequence, the proceedings under that section were incompetent.
J. Umrigar, E. J. Muharir and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellant.
In June 1950, goods belonging to the Company were stolen, and suspicion fell on the respondent.
There was an enquiry into the matter, and that resulted in his dismissal on June 28, 1950, on the ground of gross negligence and misconduct.
The Company resisted the claim on the ground, inter alia, that as the applicant had been dismissed on June 28, 1950, he was number an employee on the date of the applica tion, that accordingly there was numberindustrial dispute touching the dismissal of an employee as required by s. 16, sub ss.
76 of 1954.
W. Dhabe and R. A. Govind, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AYYAR J. The Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd., Nagpur, was, at the material dates, a public limited companypany, and the respondent was employed as a mechanic therein.
Thereafter, be applied to the Company to be reinstated, and failing to get redress, filed on October 1, 1952, an application before the Labour Commissioner under section 16 2 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act XXIII of 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for reinstatement and companypensation.
He was then prosecuted on a charge of theft, but that ended in his acquittal on March 3, 1952.
November 6.
Pending the appeal to this Court, the Company went into liquidation and has been taken over by the State of Madhya Pradesh, and is number being run under the name of Central Provinces Transport Services under Government ownership , Nagpur.
