This application has been described by the Labour Appellate Tribunal as an application for amendment of the original application which had been filed by the appellant on November 21, 1952, for permission to dismiss the respondents from its employ as per el.
This application was resisted by the respondents.
142 of 1956.
The Labour Appellate Tribunal was of the opinion that the appellant had alleged misconduct against the respondents and companyld number be allowed to adopt the expedient of terminating their services by giving numberice for the requisite period or payment of salary in lieu of numberice and that the Industrial Tribunal, therefore, ought number to have entertained the application for amendment of the prayer of the original application in which the appellant wanted to dismiss the respondents for misconduct.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 13, 1954, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India Calcutta Bench in Appeal No.
The other answer made by Shri P. K. Chatterjee was that having regard to the definition of the term retrenchment to be found in s. 2 oo of the Act the discharge of the respondents by the appellant really amounted to retrenchment and retrenchment being one of the matters specified in sub s. 1 b of s. 7 of the Industrial Disputes Appellate Tribunal Act, 1950, the respondents had a right of appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal.
K. Chatterjee, for the respondents.
This according to the Labour Appellate Tribunal was a substantial question of law and it therefore entertained the appeal.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellants.
The respondents were in the employ of the appellant and were staying in a two storeyed house in the city of Patna which had been rented by the appellant for housing its workmen.
The Industrial Tribunal, however, entertained the same and after hearing the parties duly made its award on May 14, 1953, dismissing the respondents application under s. 33A of the Act and granting the appellant permission to discharge the respondents from its employ with effect from the date of the order on payment to the respondents of one months pay in lieu of numberice within 15 days therefrom.
17 b viii of the appellants Standing Orders.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The respondents carried an appeal against the said order of the Industrial Tribunal granting the appellants application under s. 33 of the Act before the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Calcutta.
Cal 87 of 1953.
A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the appellant before the Labour Appellate Tribunal that numbersubstantial question of law was involved and as such the appeal was number maintainable.
An industrial dispute was then pending between the parties i.e., the appellant and its workmen before the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, and the appellant therefore made an application to the said Tribunal under s. 33 of the Act for permission to dismiss the respondents on the ground of misconduct as per cl.
November 5.
Written reports of the said occurrence were sent on November 21, 1952, to the appellants Chief Engineer and the respondents were placed under suspension the same day.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J. This appeal with special leave arises out of an application made by the appellant to the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar under s. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act , seeking permission to discharge the respondents from its employ.
On December 6, 1952, the appellant made an application before the said Tribunal stating that on a reconsideration of the facts of the case of the respondents the original prayer for permission to dismiss the the respondents was number being pressed, and for the ends of justice it would be sufficient if the appellant was granted permission to discharge the respondents under cl.
On November 20, 1952, an occurrence took place in the said house wherein the respondents were involved.
