Shri Harpal vs M/S. Patel Oil Mills
2009 Latest Caselaw 2570 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 W.P.(C) No. 14921/2006

%                       Date of Decision: 10th July, 2009


# SH. HARIPAL                                 ..... 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? YES

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? YES

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) This writ petition filed by the workman (petitioner herein) is

directed against an order dated 09.11.2004 in O.P. No. 15/99 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. 11.08.1989. 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 No. 1 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. 851/1999.

6. As the workman was aggrieved by the impugned order dated

09.11.2004 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. 851/1999) 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. 851/1999. 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 Nos. 11780/2006 & 13233/2006

Since the main writ petition has been dismissed, both these

applications are rendered infructuous.

JULY 10, 2009                            S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'bsr'