418
The nature of enquiry under Section 33(2) in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to know and prove that the action of employee/ workmen fall under category of misconduct in light of the standing orders or, where there are no such standing orders, in accordance with the terms of the contract, whether express or implied, between him and the workman],
(b) unless he has been paid wages for one month, where an application of employer has been made is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer.
The finding of the learned Single Judge can be summarized as under:- [Poonnamma Vishwanathan vs M/S Moolchand Khairati Ram ... on 21 December, 2018]
(a) The learned Single Judge held that the Industrial Tribunal has misconstrued the scope of Section 33(2) (b) of the ID Act and has failed to take note of the distinction between deciding the application under the aforesaid provision and deciding a labour dispute. The court further held that while considering the application under section 33(2) (b) of ID Act, the Industrial Tribunal is required to examine whether a prima facie case has been made out or not regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry against the delinquent employee (reference is made to para 23,24,34 and 35 of the impugned judgment). On this issue, the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on several decisions passed by the Apex Court in the case titled as Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Co. Ltd. v. Dasappa (B) (Binny Mills Labour Union), (1960) II LLJ 39 SC, Lord Krishna Textile Mills v. Its Workmen, AIR 1961 SC 860, Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N. Banerjee, (1958) I LLJ 247 SC and Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, 1 (1999) SLT 212.
(b) The Industrial Tribunal has wrongly held that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated on the ground that the Appellant was not permitted to have due representation. The Court noted that the witnesses of the Management were cross examined by the Appellant, and therefore, the Industrial Tribunal ought to have examined the question as to whether by following such a procedure, any prejudice has been caused to the Appellant. This question was required to be examined first before holding that the enquiry to be vitiated due to non-representation of the Appellant (reference is made to para 31 of the impugned judgment).
(c) The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined to granting approval/rejecting of the application and it cannot order reinstatement with back wages (reference is made to para 36 of the impugned judgement).
From India, Mumbai
(b) unless he has been paid wages for one month, where an application of employer has been made is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer.
The finding of the learned Single Judge can be summarized as under:- [Poonnamma Vishwanathan vs M/S Moolchand Khairati Ram ... on 21 December, 2018]
(a) The learned Single Judge held that the Industrial Tribunal has misconstrued the scope of Section 33(2) (b) of the ID Act and has failed to take note of the distinction between deciding the application under the aforesaid provision and deciding a labour dispute. The court further held that while considering the application under section 33(2) (b) of ID Act, the Industrial Tribunal is required to examine whether a prima facie case has been made out or not regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry against the delinquent employee (reference is made to para 23,24,34 and 35 of the impugned judgment). On this issue, the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on several decisions passed by the Apex Court in the case titled as Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Co. Ltd. v. Dasappa (B) (Binny Mills Labour Union), (1960) II LLJ 39 SC, Lord Krishna Textile Mills v. Its Workmen, AIR 1961 SC 860, Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N. Banerjee, (1958) I LLJ 247 SC and Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, 1 (1999) SLT 212.
(b) The Industrial Tribunal has wrongly held that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated on the ground that the Appellant was not permitted to have due representation. The Court noted that the witnesses of the Management were cross examined by the Appellant, and therefore, the Industrial Tribunal ought to have examined the question as to whether by following such a procedure, any prejudice has been caused to the Appellant. This question was required to be examined first before holding that the enquiry to be vitiated due to non-representation of the Appellant (reference is made to para 31 of the impugned judgment).
(c) The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined to granting approval/rejecting of the application and it cannot order reinstatement with back wages (reference is made to para 36 of the impugned judgement).
From India, Mumbai
Find answers from people who have previously dealt with business and work issues similar to yours - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query.
A Complete Handbook of Nature Cures.pdf