In the result, the Tribunal was number satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out for the dismissal of the respondent, and so, approval was number accorded to the action which the appellant wanted to take against the respondent and its application was accordingly dismissed.
On that view, it refused to entertain the plea raised by the appellant and proceeded to deal with the merits of the application.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated October 5, 1962 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad in Application No.
decision from this Court on the point of law raised by it before the Tribunal.
3 1958 I LLJ 63.
53 of 1961 in Reference Nos.
45, 56, 63 and 65 of 196.1.
The learned Solicitor General fairly company ceded that the appellant has companye to this Court number so much to enforce its order of dismissal against the respondent, as to have a 1 1958 II LLJ 575.
This application was made by the appellant, because certain industrial disputes were pending at the relevant time between the appellant and its employees under References Nos.
2 1952 I LLJ 628.
The Award was pronounced by the Tribunal on October 5, 1962, and when the appeal has companye for final disposal before us, more than three years have elapsed since the date of dismissal of the respondent.
4 1959 II LLJ 717.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
423 of 1964.
Jitendra Sharma and Janardan Sharma, for the respondent.
V. Gupte, Solicitor General and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant.
6 19641 II LLJ 143.
14 of 1947 hereinafter called the Act , before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad hereinafter called the Tribunal , asking for its approval of the action which it proposed to take against its employee, the respondent D. R. Singh.
It held that if the appellant thought that s. 33 did number apply, it should withdraw the application and take the companysequences.
This application was opposed by the respondent who filed his written statement.
The appellant, the Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd., N 4SCI Jamadoba, filed an application under s. 33 2 b of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 No.
In other words, the appellant wanted the Tribunal to companysider the question as to whether the respondent was a workman companycerned in the relevant industrial disputes at all, before dealing with the merits of its application.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar, C. J. This appeal raises a very short point for our decision.
The order terminating the services of the respondent was passed on December 4, 1961 and it was to take effect from December 9, 1961.
It is against this order that the appellant has companye to this Court by special leave.
45, 56, 63 and 65 of 1961.
5 1960 I LLJ 551.
