9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 1984, 61 of 1984 and 65 of 1984. The order made by the Industrial Tribunal in Application (IT) No. 46 of 1984, in which Gangaram Ramchandra Chawan was the Applicant workman, does not appear to have been challenged. Thus, today the writ petition subsists only in respect of the common order dated October 29, 1982 made in Application (IT) Nos. 57, 59, 60, 62, 63 and 64 of 1984. 3. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company which used to carry on the business of manufacture of piped domestic gas. Respondents 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 are its ex-workmen. Respondent No. 10 is the Tribunal itself. 4. At the material time, there was an industrial dispute between the Petitioner Company and its workmen which was referred for adjudication under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any event the enquiry was improperly conducted contrary to the principles of natural justice and (d) that during the period of suspension the workmen were not paid the subsistence allowance payable to them under the applicable Certified Standing Orders. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner Company is before this Court. 6. Despite notices served, Respondents 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 have not appeared before the Court. I have heard the learned Advocate Mr. Pawaskar on behalf of the Petitioner Company and with his assistance perused the record, but I am not satisfied that the impugned order needs to be interfered with for reasons which follow. 7. The first question on which the Industrial Tribunal held against the Petitioner Company was that ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application is an essential requirement of any reasonable law. An interpretation which renders the meaning of a statutory provision to fluctuate with vagaries of situations must be eschewed by the Court. Irrespective of the month in which the workman is dismissed, in my view, the amount of one 'month's wages to be paid under the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) should be for a period of 30 days at the applicable rate. The Tribunal also held against the petitioner Company on the ground that in the one month's wages the petitioner company had not included the cash equivalent of quarter litre milk and four biscuits, which the concerned workmen were entitled to under the applicable settlement. This conclusion appears to be correct in vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estic enquiry. Even this conclusion of the Tribunal appears to be justified on the facts of the case. 10. Mr. Pawaskar contended that the Petitioner Company had made an application way back in the year 1987 requesting for an opportunity, to lead evidence, in case the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the enquiry was bad. He, therefore, pleaded that the Court should remand the application for trial on the merits of the case. I am unable to agree. It is not as if the Tribunal has accepted the contention of the Petitioner Company that there was compliance with the statutory provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act and then disagreed with the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry. The Tribunal has held against the Petitioner Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
