At the companyclusion of the enquiry the appellant was found guilty of the act of misconduct alleged to have been companymitted by him by the Inquiry Officer Shri J.N. Patel, Director Manufacturing of the Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. and it was decided by the management to dismiss him but because the appellant was a protected work man as defined in the Explanation to sub section 3 of section 33 of the Act and the permission of the Tribunal had to be obtained before dismissing him as required by sub section 3 of section 33 of the Act, the management made an application IT No.
In the Standing Orders governing the appellant there was numberprovision for payment of any subsistence allowance either the whole of the allowance which the workman was entitled to draw or a part thereof during the pendency of an application made by the management under section 33 3 of the Act for permission to dismiss protected workman.
434 of 1978 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat by the appellant Fakirbhai Futabhai Solanki against the Management of the Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd., Baroda.
545 546 NL of 1986.
The Tribunal was able to dispose of them finally only on August 5, 1985.
The appellant also filed an application before the Tribunal under section 33A of the Act companyplaining violation of section 33 of the Act by the management.
The Court further held that a civil servant under suspension was entitled to the numbermal subsistence allowance even after his companyviction by the Trial Court pending companysideration of his appeal filed against his companyviction until the appeal was disposed of finally one way or the other, whether he was on bail or lodged in prison on companyviction by the Trial Court.
88 of 1979 in reference IT No.
During the pendency of a reference made under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act to the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat the management served a charge sheet on the appellant who was one of the workmen working in the factory belonging to the management of the Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd., Baroda asking him to show cause why disciplinary action should number be taken against him for an alleged Act of misconduct said to have been companymitted by him on July 12, 1979.
It was alleged that the appellant had given a letter addressed to Shri R.A. Desai, Manager, Industrial Relations, Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. admitting his guilt and tendering apology.
The appellant was, however, suspended from service with effect from 13.8.1979 pending disposal of the application before the Tribunal after he had been found guilty at the domestic enquiry but without any wages or allowances.
From the Award dated 5.8.1985 of the Industrial Tribunal at Gujarat in companyplaint No.
The act of misconduct attributed to the appellant was that he was playing cards along with two other workmen during the working hours of the factory.
IT 124 of 1979 and application IT No.
When an applicator is made under section 33 3 of the Act the workman is entitled to defend himself before the Tribunal.
Admittedly the appellant was number paid any allowance from 13.8.1979 to August 5, 1985 on which date the Tribunal accorded its permission to the management to dismiss him from service.
Both, the application under section 33 3 of the Act and the companyplaint under section 33 A of the Act, were filed in the year 1979.
88 of 1979 before the Tribunal for such permission.
124 of 1979 in Reference IT No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
88 of 1979 and Complaint IT No.
H. Parekh and Uday Lalit for the Respondents.
434 of 1978.
434 of 1978.
K. Goel for the Appellant.
The disciplinary enquiry was held against all the three work 1063 men including the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. These two appeals by special leave are filed under Article 136 o the Constitution of India against the Order Award dated 5.8.1985 in Application IT No.
The companyplaint of the appellant was registered as Complaint IT NO.
The Tribunal granted permission to the management to dismiss the appellant and rejected the companyplaint filed by him.
124 of 1979 in Reference IT No.
Aggrieved by the said decision of the Tribunal the appellant has filed these two appeals.
