9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (3) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present appellant. The, facts giving rise to this appeal are : Shri Naresh Kumar Ganguli, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') was employed in the Borpukhurie Tea Estate belonging to Bishnauth Tea Company Ltd. (which is engaged in the cultivation and manufacture of tea and employs a number of workmen of various categories to carry on its business) as a 2nd Clerk and was recognised as a Protected Workman' within the meaning of section 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On September 11, 1966, the Company's cheque No. 53 which allegedly bore the forged signatures of the Manager of the Borpukhurie Tea Estate was encashed from a local banker. On enquiry, Man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Management could not straightaway dismiss the respondent. Accordingly, by its letter dated November 10, 1966, the Management informed the respondent that he had been found guilty of the charge contained in the charge sheet served on him on September 19, 1966 and that he would be dismissed from service of the Company but that the punishment would not be put into effect pending orders of the competent authority under section 33 of the Act, and in the meantime, he would remain under suspension. The communication dated November 10, 1966 written on behalf of the appellant to the respondent ran as under: "Shri N. K. Canguli, 2nd Clerk, Borpukhurie T.E. P.O. Charali. Dear Sir, You are, hereby informed that you have been found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue to get a month ration) (3) Fire-wood "Free of cost (Already to get for the further months of the year), I will be happy of your early action in this matter. Soliciting an early confirmation. Yours faithfully, Sd/- N. K. Ganguli 2'nd Clerk." On December 24, 1966, the respondent filed before the Industrial Tribunal a complaint under section 33A of the Act alleging contravention of the provisions of section 33 of the Act by the appellant and praying for a decision in the matter. On June 27, 1967, when it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t obtaining the permission from the Tribunal'. Aggrieved by this order, the Management filed an application before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari or mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing the aforesaid order dated July 10, 1967 of the Industrial Tribunal but the same was dismissed with the observation that the punishment of dismissal having already been inflicted without complying with the provisions of section 33(3) (b) of the Act, an Ex Post Facto permission could not be granted. It is against this order that the Management has come up in appeal to this Court. Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. Nariman has urged that though it may be open to an Industrial Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raph 10 of the appellant's application dated November 10, 1966 to the Industrial Tribunal to the effect the respondent workman had been informed that the appellant had decided that he should be dismissed for misconduct under clause 10(a) (2) of the Standing Orders but until permission of the Tribunal is received, he would be under suspension clearly show that the appellant had not dismissed the respondent but had only decided to dismiss him, and the Industrial Tribunal and the High Court were manifestly wrong in making Auction to the contrary. It is unfortunate that both the Industrial Tribunal and the High Court tried to clutch at some stray words here and there to justify rejection of the appellant's prayer to treat its original applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... industrial Tribunal should treat the appellant's original application which was in fact and in substance for permission as one under section 33(3)(b) of the Act and dispose of the same in conformity with law after going into the following points : 1. Whether it is conclusively proved that the signatures of the Manager of the Borpukhurie Tea Estate on the aforesiad cheque No. 5 3 were forged ? 2. What became of the report which appears to have been made by the appellant to the police in- respect of the said cheque and what is the impact of the result of that report on the truth or otherwise of the alleged forgery ? 3. Whether a prima facie case for dismissal of the respondent is made out by the appellant ? 4. Whether the appellant's dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
