Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23.From the above, it is very clear that the Labour Court has not properly applied its mind with regard to the charges and the misconduct alleged against this writ petitioner and others. In so far as this writ petitioner is concerned, his misconduct it totally different and it is unconnected with the dispute that was pending before the Labour Court at that time.

24.The Management declared a lockout and the reasons for the lockout are that : in the bonus negotiations a section of the employees began resorting to go slow which delayed the production by about 4 hours and thus, the disruption virtually turned the newspapers into waste papers, even before it left the premises, causing irreversible loss. In view of the irrational action of the wrokmen on 22.09.1995, the management issued a notice on the morning of 23rd September 1995, stating that if the section of the workmen who resorted to go slow on the previous day, did not assure the management that they would not resort to go slow again and also assure the management that they would bring about publication in time, the management would suspend the publication of the Indian Express, Dinamani and Andhra Prabah for the day, as it could not afford the loss incurred the previous day. But, the employees did not give any such assurance, instead they were determined to continue with the same tactics. This has forced the management to declare a notice suspending the publications of the news papers which were to appear on 24th September 1995. Thereafter, a section of the workmen resorted to illegal ghearoeing of the Editors and the executives of the company including the editorial staff. In some cases, the officials were confined to the godown and they were not allowed to move. This forced the company to seek the assistance of the police, as food or snacks were not being allowed to those who have been illegally confined. Therefore, lockout was finally declared. Under these circumstances, notice has been issued stating that lockout was declared by the Management.

25.If that being so, the charges levelled against the petitioner herein is not connected with the lockout which is the issue pending before the Labour Court.

26.Under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it is stated that during the pendency of any such proceedings, in respect of an Industrial Dispute, the employer may, in accordance with the standing orders applicable to a workmen, or there is no such dispute, or whether there are no such standards, in accordance with the terms of the contract, whether expressed or implied, between him and the workmen, alter in regard to any matter not connected with the dispute, the conditions of services applicable to that workman immediately before the commencement of such proceeding; (or) under Section 32(2)(b), for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, discharge or punish whether by dismissal or otherwise that workman, provided that no such workman shall be dismissed or discharged unless he has been paid wages for one month and an application has been made by the employer to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer.

27.From the above, it is clear that Section 33(2)(b) will get attracted only when the alleged misconduct said to have been committed by the workman is not connected with the dispute.

28.In the present case, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, his case will get attracted under Section 33(2)(b), but, the others case would go under Section 33(1)(b), because the misconduct alleged against the other three persons was connected with the lockout dispute pending before the Labour Court. In such circumstances, clubbing all the four cases itself is wrong and what is still worse is the individual misconduct of the petitioner which is not connected with the dispute, was not specifically dealt with. A sweeping observation was made by stating that all the four persons in the common order are guilty of the same offence, which will go to show that the labour court has not at all applied its mind with regard to the issues and mechanically considered all the four cases together and granted approval, which is unsustainable in law. It is pertinent to mention here that under Section 33(2)(b), what is sought for in the approval petition is the approval for the action taken against them. The writ petitioner's case is definitely coming under Section 33(2)(b), but, the other persons cases could get attracted under Section 33(1)(b), for which, express permission is necessary in writing before discharging or dismissing. So, this difference between 33(1)(b) and Section 32(2)(b) has not been properly considered by the Labour Court and as such, approval granted to the petitioner is vitiated and is liable to be set aside.

37.An additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner wherein it was stated that at the time he was discharged from service, the lock out case was pending before the Labour Court and hence, the management filed the approval petition for seeking approval of their action. The union raised a dispute before the Joint Commissioner of Labour on 24.09.1995 against the lockout. In the remarks submitted by the management for the lockout, they falsely alleged that workers and the active members of the Union instigated the other workers to go slow, ghearoe and indulge in violence and hence, they declared a lockout. The reason for the lockout as stated by the respondent management before the Joint Commissioner of Labour and the charges issued against him, is one and the same. Hence, his discharge is connected with the earlier dispute of lockout. Therefore, the management ought to have sought for permission before passing the order under Section 33(1)(b) of the act and in that case, prior permission ought to have been obtained before passing the order removing him from service. Hence, on this ground also, the petitioner prayed for relief from this Court assailing the order of the Labour Court.