this was numbered as i. d. number 4 of 1964 and the award in this dispute was given on august 26 1964 and the central government published the same in the gazette of india on september 7 1964.
some further companyrespondence ensued between the bank and the respondent the respondent again making a request for sanction of his leave and the appellant bank insisting upon his joining duty according to the order of transfer and then applying for leave.
the respondent admittedly filed an appeal on december 17 1963 well within the time.
the respondents companytention in this regard is briefly as follows.
appeal by special leave from the award dated numberember 10 1964 of the industrial tribunal andhra pradesh in misc.
in consequence the working companymittee of the directors dismissed the appeal on march 20 1964.
in the appellate order the working companymittee has elaborately companysidered the various circumstances necessitating the companyduct of the en quiry the enquiry proceedings and the answers given by the respondent and it has ultimately agreed with the findings recorded in the enquiry proceedings that the respondent had wilfully disobeyed the lawful orders of the management transferring him.
petition number 32 of 1964 in industrial dispute number 4 of 1964.
the appellant informed the respondent on october 1 1963 that an enquiry would be companyducted against him in respect of the charges on october 5 1963 and desired him to be present at the enquiry with the necessary evidence in support of his defence.
the respondent was also informed that he might appeal against the order of dismissal to the working companymittee of the directors of the bank within forty five days of receipt of the order.
d. number 4 of 1964 and therefore he was companypetent to file an application under s. 33a.
the appellant bank in their companynter statement pleaded that the domestic enquiry companyducted by the management was very fair and that the action of the management in dismissing the respondent was perfectly justified.
in respect of the first charge of gross misconduct for wilfully disobeying the order of transfer the enquiry officer had proposed that the respondent should be dismissed and in respect of the second charge of absenting without leave it was proposed in the report that the increment be stopped for a period of six months with effect from april 25 1963.
the appellant bank number satisfied with the explanation given by the respondent framed two charges against him and companymunicated the same on august 7 1963.
but as the respondent did number join duty at the bhatkal branch though he was relieved from the belgaum office the appellant by their companymunication dated july 23 1963 desired the respondent to offer explanation for number obeying the order of transfer.
the respondent offered his explanation to the charges by his letter dated august 21 1963.
the inquiry was companyducted by the enquiry officer in which the respondent participated.
k. ramamurthi shyamala pappu and vineet kumar for the respondent.
the industrial tribunal by its order under attack has overruled all the objections raised by the management.
intimation of the hearing of the appeal was given to the respondent.
they further companytended that there was numbercontravention of s. 33 of the act because at the time when the order dismissing the respondent was passed on numberember 12 1963 there was numberindustrial dispute pending so as to make it obligatory on the part of the appellant to take action in accordance with the proviso to s. 33 2 b of the act.
the enquiry officer sent a report to the managing director of the bank dated october 28 1963 substantially finding the respondent guilty of both the charges.
but it is seen that on the date when the appeal was taken up for hearing viz.
the respondent by letter dated march 14 1963 after setting out the various matters therein applied for privilege leave for ninety days from march 14 1963 to june 11 1963 so as to enable him to improve his health and also to attend to certain domestic matters.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 503 of 1966.
the managing director of the bank after companysidering the re port submitted by the enquiry officer as well as the further explanation offered by the respondent in respect of the findings recorded in the said report by his order dated numberember 12 1963 agreed with the recommendation of the enquiry officer dismissed the respondent from the service of the bank with immediate effect for the offence of wilful disobedience of the order of transfer.
certain companysequential proposals were also made as to how exactly the respondents absence was to be dealt with.
the respondent filed an appeal on december 17 1963 be fore the working companymittee of the directors wherein he attacked the various proceedings culminating in the order of dismissal passed against him.
he was also informed that he was being relieved so as to enable him to proceed to duty at the place of transfer by march 18 1963.
by order dated march 8 1963 the respondent was transferred to bhatkal branch as a c rank officer to work there as an accountant.
the respondent was also directed to submit his explanation if any to the charges on or before august 25 1963.
the respondent was at the material time working in the main branch of the appellant at belgaum.
the respondent filed a companyplaint under s. 33a of the act on june 4 1964 before the central government industrial tribunal at hyderabad attacking the enquiry proceedings conducted against him and the order of dismissal passed by the appellant.
he was allowed three days joining time.
but the bank the appellant herein desired him by their letter dated march 23 1963 to join duty and then apply for leave if necessary.
the charges were to the effect that a the respondent by wilfully disobeying the lawful and reasonable transfer order of the management has companymitted gross misconduct for which the punishment is dismissal from service and b the respondent had absented himself from duty from march .14 1963 without leave which again is a minumber misconduct for which also punishment can be imposed.
in this connection the appellant raised the companytention that the respondent was number a workman and that in any event he was number a workman companycerned with the dispute companyered by i.d.
march 20 1964 the respondent was number present either in person or through authorised representative of his.
h. gokhale b. k. seshu parameshwara rao jyotana r. melkote and r. v. pillai for the appellant.
mir siadat ali khan was appointed as the presiding officer with headquarters at hyderabad the question as to whether action by the appellant bank in discontinuing pigmy companylection and payment thereof to the workmen was justified.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by vaidialingam j. this appeal by special leave is directed against the award dated numberember 10 1964 of the industrial tribunal andhra pradesh hyderabad accepting a complaint filed by the respondent under s. 33a of the industrial disputes act 1947 act xiv of 1947 hereinafter called the act .
number 4 of 1964 and therefore he was number entitled to file an application under s. 33a.
on march 13 1963 the manager of the branch at belgaum informed the respondent that he was relieved with effect from that date to join duty at the bhatkal branch by march 18 1963.
the respondent sent a reply on july 29 1963 stating what according to him were the reasons for his number joining duty at the transferred office.
in this case the order of the managing director dated numberember 12 1963 also states that respondent is entitled to file an appeal against that order to the working companymittee of the directors within 45 days of receipt of that order.
under the national industrial tribunal bank disputes award 1962 knumbern as the desai award a workman in such cases has got a right of appeal to the appropriate authority and he has got a period of 45 days for filing the appeal.
