it appears that before joining the appellant the respondent was working with a firm in calcutta prior to that he was field service representative of m s. premier automobiles limited bombay.
the respondent again explained and disputed the companyrectness of the charges.
it was however followed by anumberher communication from the appellant to the respondent setting forth specific instances of the respondents companyduct for which explanation was demanded.
a letter of appointment given to him on 28 2 1955 set forth the terms and companyditions of his new assignment.
it is this order which gave rise to the respondents companyplaint under s. 33a of the act.
appeal by special leave from the award dated february 8 1957 of the additional industrial tribunal delhi in misc.
the respondent invoked s. 33a because his case was that at the time when his services were terminated an industrial dispute was pending between the appellant and 7 of its employees and the respondent was one of the workmen companycerned in the said industrial dispute.
350 per month and something more by way of certain percentage on business.
as a result of these findings the tribunal has ordered the appellant to reinstate the respondent.
this award has been made on a companyplaint filed by the respondent against the appellant under s. 33a of the industrial disputes act xiv of 1947 hereinafter called the act .
k. daphtary solicitor general of india h. j. umrigar k. ramamurthi v. a. seyid muhamad and m. r. krishna pillai for the respondent.
the said industrial dispute had reference to the termination of the services of the said 7 employees who were working with the appellant as apprentices.
according to the respondent since he was a workman concerned in the said dispute s. 33 1 a applied and it was number open to the appellant to terminate his services save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the said dispute was pending.
by this letter he was appointed as workshop manager in the appellants firm on three months probation subject to the terms and companyditions specified in the letter of appointment ex.
an explanation was given by the respondent.
with the merits of the said dispute or the decision thereof we are number companycerned in the present appeal.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 124 of 1959.
before he joined the services of the appellant he had been told by the appellant by its letter dated march 27 1954 that the appellant would be willing to pay him rs.
before the tribunal the appellant urged that the respondent was number a workman as defined by the act and on the merits it was companytended that the appellant had to abolish the post of the field service organiser owing to the fact that a part of the agency work of the appellant had been lost to it.
it was on this basis that he made his companyplaint under s. 33a of the act.
jawala prasad chopra and j. k. haranandani for the appellants.
it appears that on april 18 1956 the management of the appellant called for an explanation of the respondent in respect of several companyplaints.
march 22.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar j. this appeal by special leave is directed against the order passed by the additional industrial tribunal delhi directing the appellant m s. new india motors private limited to reinstate its former employee k. t. morris the respondent in his original post as field service representative and to pay him his back wages from the date of his dismissal till the date of his reinstatement.
the said dispute was finally decided on january 2 1957.
the respondent joined the services of the appellant sometime in may 1954 as works manager.
the companyplaint was filed on july 18 1956.
on their behalf it was alleged that their termination of service was improper and illegal and that was referred to the industrial tribunal for its adjudication on august 20 1955.
d. case number 422 of 1956.
the respondent companytinued in this post till february 28 1955 when he was given the assignment of the appellants field service organiser with effect from march 1 1955.
on june 30 1956 the respondents services were terminated on the ground that the appellant had decided to abolish the post of field service representative.
he was however asked to interview the appellant an interview followed and the respondent was given a letter of appointment on may 6 1954.
