That in submitting the application U s. 33 2 b of the Industrial Disputes Act there was a technical error made unintentionally by the applicant.
35 of 1964, was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Assam at Gauhati, the Management companyld number straightaway dismiss the respondent.
236 of 1967 S. Narinian, P. H. Parekh S. N. Choudhari For the Appellant P. Gupta B. B. Tawakley For Respondent No.
You are accordingly informed that you will he dismissed from the service of the companypany.
By his order dated July 10, 1967, the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal refused to treat the Managements original application under section 33 2 of the Act as one under section 33 3 b of the Act and rejected the same as number maintainable holding that the Management had violated the provisions of the Act in dismissing the respondent who was admittedly a protected work man without obtaining the permission from the Tribunal.
The Management, therefore, decided to dismiss the respondent.
This punishment will number be put into effect pending orders of the companypetent authority under section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in the meantime you will remain tinder suspension.
2 Ex Parte For Respondent No.
office.
Soliciting an early companyfirmation.
As the explanation tendered by the respondent which was one of denial was found to be unsatisfactory, an enquiry into the charge was held by Mr. R. L. Pennoll, Superintendent of the Company.
1 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave s directed against the judgment and order dated September 18, 1970 of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland passed in Civil Rule No.
As the act of the respondent prima facie companystituted a grave misconduct under clause 10 a 2 of the Standing Orders of the Es tablishment, a charge sheet was served on him on September 19, 1966 accusing him of obtaining money through Mansid Munda from the local banker by forging the Managers signatures on the aforesaid cheque and calling upon him to submit his explanation in regard thereto which he did on September 22, 1966.
680/ were handed over to the latter at the garden.
the 18th September, 1970 of the Assam Nagaland High Court at Gauhati in Civil Rule No.
This application is reproduced below for facility of reference 1.
236 of 1967 filed by the present appellant.
Accordingly, by its letter dated November 10, 1966, the Management informed the respondent that he had been found guilty of the charge companytained in the charge sheet served on him on September 19, 1966 and that he would be dismissed from service of the Company but that the punishment would number be put into effect pending orders of the companypetent authority under section 33 of the Act, and in the meantime, he would remain under suspension.
As the respondent was a protected workman and an industrial dispute, being reference No.
Ration Rice Atta As per staff ration rate Tea Free of companyt Still I am due to get a month ration Fire wood Free of companyt Already to get for the further months of the year , I will be happy of your early action in this matter.
On December 24, 1966, the respondent filed before the Indus trial Tribunal a companyplaint under section 33A of the Act alleging companytravention of the provisions of section 33 of the Act by the appellant and praying for a decision in the matter.
Yours faithfully, Sd N. K. Ganguli 2nd Clerk.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
2 hereinafter referred to as the respondent was employed in the Borpukhurie Tea Estate belonging to Bishnauth Tea Company Ltd. which is engaged in the cultivation and manufacture of tea and employs a large number of workmen of various categories to carry on its business as a 2nd Clerk and was recognised as a Protected Workman within the meaning of section 33 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
It is against this order that the Management has companye up in appeal to this Court.
The, facts giving rise to this appeal are Shri Naresh Kumar Ganguli, respondent No.
On enquiry, Mansid Munda, the factory chowkidar stated that the cheque was cashed under instructions of the respondent and proceeds thereof amounting to Rs.
At the companyclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report stating therein that the material adduced in the companyrse of the enquiry proved that the respondent was guilty of grave misconduct as envisaged by the aforesaid clause of the Standing Order.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dt.
1764 of 1971.
On September 11, 1966, the Companys cheque No.
The respondent who was present throughout the enquiry was afforded opportunity to cross examine the witnesses produced on behalf of the Company and to produce evidence in his defence.
53 which allegedly bore the forged signatures of the Manager of the Borpukhurie Tea Estate was encashed from a local banker.
Dear Sir, You are, hereby informed that you have been found guilty after due hearing of your case as prescribed by Standing Orders of the charge served on you in my letter of the 19th September, 1966.
The companymunication dated November 10, 1966 written on behalf of the appellant to the respondent ran as under Shri N. K. Canguli, 2nd Clerk, Borpukhurie T.E. O. Charali.
On November 17, 1966, the respondent addresed the following companymunication to the Manager of the Borpukhurie Tea Estate The Manager, Borpukhurie Tea Estate, Charail P.O. Sir, It appears to me from your letter dated 10 11 66 that I am number yet dismissed, only I have to be on suspension without pay till you receive any decision from the authority So, as I am number yet dismissed, you will allow me to avail the privilege in companynection with any service with the Company as below and other if there are.
Aggrieved by this order, the Management filed an application before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari or mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing the aforesaid order dated July 10, 1967 of the Industrial Tribunal but the same was dismissed with the observation that the punishment of dismissal having already been inflicted without companyplying with the provisions of section 33 3 b of the Act, an Ex Post Facto permission companyld number be granted.
As my enquiry into the charge against you has companycluded, you will number receive any subsistence allowance during this period of suspension.
Yours faithfully, Sd/1 W. P. Swer, Assistant in Charge.
