Delhi High Court
Shri Surender Singh Rawat vs M/S. Patel Oil Mills on 10 July, 2009
Author: S.N. Aggarwal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 14922/2006
% Date of Decision: 10th July, 2009
# SH. SURENDER SINGH RAWAT ..... PETITIONER
! Through: Mr. Naveen K. Jha, Advocate.
VERSUS
$ M/S PATEL OIL MILLS .....RESPONDENT
^ Through: Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advocate.
CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL
1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see
the judgment? NO
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? NO
S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
This writ petition filed by the workman (petitioner herein) is
directed against an order dated 29.01.2005 in O.P. No. 19/1999 passed
by Shri P.S. Teji, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Delhi granting
approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to
the petitioner for his dismissal from service of the respondent vide order
dated 04.02.1999.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed with
the respondent as Assistant Operator w.e.f. 17.07.1990. He was served
with a charge sheet dated 04.07.1998 and he was accused of adopting
go-slow tactics from 25.05.1998 to 10.06.1998 as well as indulging in
abusing and slogan shouting at the management along with his other
colleagues during the strike period. The domestic inquiry was held
against the petitioner in which he was found guilty of the charges leveled
against him.
3. The management of the respondent after considering the Inquiry
Report and taking into account other relevant material decided to dismiss
the petitioner from its service and the petitioner was accordingly
dismissed vide order dated 04.02.1999.
4. Since at the time management of respondent dismissed the
petitioner from its service vide order dated 04.02.1999, an industrial
dispute relating to general demands of the workers ID No. 95/1998 was
pending adjudication before the Labour Court, the management filed an
application under Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for
approval of dismissal of the petitioner before the Labour Court which vide
impugned order has been allowed and the approval has been granted to
the management for dismissal of the service of the petitioner.
5. While the approval application of the management for dismissal of
the petitioner was pending consideration before the Tribunal below the
workman raised an independent industrial dispute relating to his
dismissal from service of the respondent. This industrial dispute raised
by the workman was registered as ID No. 847/1999.
6. As the workman was aggrieved by the impugned order dated
29.01.2005 granting approval to the respondent for dismissal of the
petitioner, the workman filed the present writ petition seeking to set
aside the said approval order inter alia on the ground that the approval
order was without jurisdiction because according to him the respondent
instead of asking for approval was required to obtain prior permission of
the Tribunal below for dismissing the petitioner from its service.
7. This Court has been informed by Ms. Raavi Birbal, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent that during the pendency of the
present writ petition, the industrial dispute relating to dismissal raised by
the workman (ID No. 847/1999) has been decided by the Tribunal below
and the dismissal of the petitioner has been found to be justified. Both
inquiry issue as well as the issue relating to quantum of punishment are
stated to have been decided by the Tribunal below against the workman
and in favour of the management.
8. Mr Naveen K. Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner says that he has instructions from his client to challenge the
award of the Tribunal below by which the dismissal of the petitioner has
been upheld by the Tribunal below during the pendency of the
proceedings of the present writ petition.
9. Since the industrial dispute relating to dismissal of the petitioner
from service of the respondent has been decided by the Tribunal below
against the workman and in favour of the management, I am of the view
that the prayer made by the petitioner in the present writ petition is
rendered infructuous because the challenge to the approval order made
by the workman in the present petition for want of jurisdictional error will
also be a ground of challenge to the award confirming the dismissal of
the petitioner. The petitioner can take all such grounds as may be
available to him in law including his contention that the management was
required to take prior permission of the Tribunal below instead of
applying for approval for dismissing the petitioner from its service, while
filing a writ petition challenging the award passed by the Tribunal below
in ID No. 847/1999. All contentions which the petitioner has taken
against the impugned order of approval in the present writ petition are
left open to be considered in the writ petition to be filed by the workman
against the award that has been given by the Tribunal below during the
pendency of the present petition. Subject to that, the present writ
petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
CM No. 13153/2006
Since the main writ petition has been dismissed, this application is
rendered infructuous.
JULY 10, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'bsr'
