3 herein, was employed as a munshi in the appellants Bidi factor at Bhandara.
The High Court field against the appellant.
In the Vidarbha region of the State, there was another similar Act in operation.
Under s. 2 of that Act the Bombay Industrial Relations Act of 1946 as in force immediately before the companymencement of the 1965 Act in the Bombay area of the State of Maharashtra was extended to the rest of the State.
As a result, the Act number extends to the whole of the State.
An enquiry in respect thereof was held on May 15th after receipt of written statement from Nathu.
on May 13, 1965.
The Labour Court after holding an enquiry took the view that the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse, that the order of dismissal was passed by a person number authorised to exercise the power and companysequently the Labour Court directed the reinstatement of the third respondent with all back wages.
812 of 1966.
The appellant then filed a peti tion under Art.
The Industrial Court companyfirmed the order of the Labour Court.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 12, 1967 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Special Civil Application No.
The C.P. and Berar Act was repealed.
He had been forced to append his signature to a certain paper without the same having been read over to him.
One Nathu, respondent No.
The Act suffered numerous amendments from time to time until 1965 when Maharashtra Act 22 of 1965 was passed The new, Act was described as an Act to extend the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 throughout the State of Maharashtra and for that and for certain other purposes further lo amend that Act, and to repeal companyresponding laws in force in any part of the State.
The Bombay High Court has held that it was number necessary for an employee first to approach the employer or to follow the procedure laid down in s. 42 4 including the proviso before he companyld apply to the Labour Court for relief under S. 7 8 1 D. The facts are as follows.
227 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant had framed a charge sheet against him in respect of certain acts of misconduct, gross negligence of duty, insubordination etc.
12 of 1968.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. In this appeal by certificate the question involved is, whether the Labour Court at Nagpur companyld exercise jurisdiction under s. 78 1 D of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act in a case where the employee of an industry governed by the Act had number companyplied with the provisions of s. 42 4 of the said statute read with the proviso to the said sub section.
His companyplaint was that the charge sheet was number proper, that the Head Office of the appellant had numberauthority to deal with his case tinder the Standing Orders, that numberevidence was allowed or filed on behalf of the employer and that the finding was based only on his statement and in particular his cross examination.
Holding that the charges leveled against him were proved, the employer dismissed the third respondent with effect from August 1, 1965.
The appellant preferred an appeal to the State Industrial Court companytending, inter alia, that the third respondent had failed to companyply with the provisions of law in that he did number make an application under S. 42 4 of the Act which was a companydition precedent to approaching the Labour Court and prayed that the order of the Labour Court should be set aside on that ground alone.
N. Phadke and Mohinder Narain, for the appellant.
The said respondent filed an application challenging the order of dismissal before the Labour Court under s. 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the 5th August.
