The respondent took the plea before the Tribunal that he was a protected workman and hence his dismissal was illegal in the absence of prior permission from the Tribunal under section 33 3 of the I.D. Act.
The Tribunal further approved the order of dismissal by its order dated February 18, 1971.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 16th November, 1971 of the Additional Commissioner for Workmans Compensation, Madurai in T.N.S.E. Appeal No.
CI/75 Natesan, M. L. Verma and D. N. Gupta for the appellant.
K. Ramamurth and J. Ramamurthi for the respondent, The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Madurai briefly the companymissioner in an appeal before him lodged by the respondent against the order of his dismissal passed by the appellant companypany on December 29, 1970.
Since an industrial dispute was pending at the relevant time, the management simultaneously submitted an application to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, for approval of the order of dismissal under section 33 2 b of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 briefly the I. D. Act .
The Tribunal, however, refused to accept this plea and held that he was number a protected workmen.
The Commissioner after a perusal of all the documents produced by the parties before him took some additional evidence and after hearing the parties set aside the order of dismissal by the impugned order of November 16, 1971.
3 251 Sup.
Prior to the termination of the proceedings before the Tribunal on February 18, 1971, the respondent had filed an appeal before the Commissioner under section 41 2 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment, Act briefly the Shops Act .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Commissioner also held that the order of dismissal was absolutely disproportionate, to the gravity of the offence proved.
The charges against him were that he was absent on November 2 1970, without leave and without sufficient cause and also secondly that he was on the said day privately doing some repair work of a typewriter in the premises belonging to the Eswari Institute of Commerce, Tiruchirapalli.
1764 of 1972.
The respondent was in employment under the appellant companypany at the Tiruchirapalli Branch as a typewriter mechanic since 1950.
The respondent was directed to show cause on November 17, 1970 and was placed under suspension.
After receipt of Ms reply to the charge sheet, a domestic enquiry was held in which witnesses were examined.
8 of 1971.
The Enquiry Officer found both the charges to be established and on receipt of his report the management passed an order of dismissal.
The respondent examined only himself on his behalf and the appellant examined three witnesses including the Manager of the Tiruchirapalli Branch and the companypanys doctor.
