87 88 of 1986 Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs.
87 88 of 1986.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed special leave petitions in this Court raising the questions similar to the questions raised in Civil Appeal Nos.
The respondents workmen were in the service of the petitioner company they were kept under suspension w.e.f.
3 SCR 618 and Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs.
The questions raised in the special leave petitions filed by the petitioners are companyered by the Constitution Bench judgment delivered on 17.1.2002 in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. supra .
In the written submissions filed on behalf of the petitioners, it is stated that Mr. T.Pionnagiri left the service of the petitioner company and hence the SLP and the reliefs may be companyfined to Mr. Prabhakar H. Manjare.
Thus, these SLPs came up for hearing before this Bench.
In the writ petition filed by the respondents, the learned Single Judge of the High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal the respondents filed writ appeals challenging the order of the Tribunal as affirmed by the learned Single Judge the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned order allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge affirming the order of the Tribunal and held that the respondents shall be deemed in companytinuous service of the petitioners and were entitled to all companysequential benefits.
The Constitution Bench decided the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. supra holding Punjab Beverages vs. Suresh Chand 1978 2 SCC 144 is numbermore a good law and approved the judgment in Straw Board Manufacturing Co. vs. Govind 1962 Supp.
4.5.1984 since an industrial dispute was already pending, the companypany moved an application seeking approval of the order of dismissal dated 21.1.1986 of the respondents under Section 32 2 b of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for short the Act .
Mr. K.N. Rawal, learned Addl.
1978 2 SCC 144 .
Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Suresh Chand Anr.
Ram Gopal Sharma Others 2002 2 SCC 244 and those appeals were referred to the Constitution Bench.
This Court on 9.8.2001 ordered that the special leave petitions filed by the companypany be also heard alongwith Civil Appeal Nos.
In the special leave petitions, the petitioners stated that they may also be heard with the said appeals.
On the same day, the Constitution Bench passed the order to place these SLPs before the Bench of two learned Judges for disposal.
Hence the special leave petition is companyfined to him only.
SHIVARAJ V. PATIL J. The judgment and order dated 15.6.1998 of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court passed in Writ Appeal Nos.
8826/96 and 265/97 are under challenge in these appeals.
The petitioners, treating the number compliance of Section 33 2 b as mere technical breach, passed orders of dismissal for the second time on 9.10.1987 without any further fresh inquiry and without paying wages to the respondents for the period from the date of first dismissal order, i.e., 21.1.1986 to 9.10.1987, i.e., date of second dismissal order the companypany again moved applications seeking approval of the orders of dismissal before the National Industrial tribunal this time the Tribunal granted approval on 2.3.1989 relying on the judgment of this Court in M s.Punjab Beverages Pvt.
The National industrial Tribunal by two separate orders, both dated 1.9.1987 held that the orders of dismissal were invalid for number compliance of the provisions of Section 33 2 b of the Act in that wages for one month were number paid these orders of the Tribunal remained unchallenged and reached finality.
S.N. Modak 1965 3 SCR 411.
