9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent was a "workman concerned" in the appeal pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. 2. The interpretation of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. 3. The validity of the respondent's dismissal under the provisions of Section 22 of the Act. 4. The necessity of the Tribunal to go into the merits of the dismissal. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the respondent was a "workman concerned" in the appeal pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal The primary contention of the appellant was that the respondent was not entitled to file an application as he was not a "workman concerned" in the appeal pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The appellant argued that the appeal related to the dismissal of a single workman, Janardhana Bhatt, and hence, no other workmen were "concerned" in such an appeal. The workers, represented by the City Hotel Workers' Association, contended that a restricted meaning should not be given to the expression "workmen concerned" in such appeal. The court concluded that the question of whether a particular workman is or is not a "workman concerned" in an appeal is a question of fact. The term "concerned" connotes a more intimate and direct relation to the matter than the word "interested." The court provided examples to illustrate this distinction, emphasizing that the word "concerned" should have a more restricted meaning than "interested." 2. The interpretation of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 Section 22 of the Act stipulates that during the pendency of any appeal under the Act, no employer shall alter the conditions of service to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such appeal or discharge or punish any workmen concerned in such appeal without the express permission in writing of the Appellate Tribunal. The court noted that the object of Section 22, similar to Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is to protect workmen from victimization by the employer and to ensure that ongoing proceedings are brought to a termination in a peaceful atmosphere. The court emphasized that the management could not take disciplinary action against workmen during the pendency of an appeal without the Tribunal's permission. 3. The validity of the respondent's dismissal under the provisions of Section 22 of the Act The respondent, M.S. Narayana Rao, was dismissed by the appellant on the grounds of stealing while an appeal concerning another workman's dismissal was pending. The court held that the dismissal of the respondent was in contravention of Section 22 of the Act, as it was done without the express permission of the Appellate Tribunal. The court reasoned that since the workers collectively took up the cause of the dismissed employee, all such workmen were in a sense "concerned" in the appeal. The management's action of dismissing the respondent without permission was deemed invalid. 4. The necessity of the Tribunal to go into the merits of the dismissal The court observed that it was unnecessary for the Chairman of the Tribunal to go into the merits of the respondent's dismissal once it was established that the dismissal was in contravention of Section 22 of the Act. The court clarified that this would preclude the Tribunal from dealing with any future application by the management for permission to dismiss the respondent. The court made it clear that it did not accept the Chairman's decision on the merits and left the question open for future determination. Conclusion The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the decision that the respondent's dismissal was invalid under Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. The court emphasized the protective intent of Section 22 and the necessity for employers to seek permission from the Appellate Tribunal before taking disciplinary action against workmen during the pendency of an appeal. No costs were awarded.
|
