Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The application under S. 33(2)(b) of the Act was also made on 9th March, 1976 in which the petitioner-company stated that the company had remitted to the employee an amount equal to one month's wages on 9th March, 1976 and that the application was being filed on 9th March, 1976 and further that the discharge order, payment of one month's wages and filing of the application formed a chain of one transaction.

5. Before the Industrial Tribunal evidence of Jog and the enquiry officer Shanbhag was recorded. According to the petitioner, the recording of oral evidence was completed round about 4.20 p.m. on 5th October, 1976 and that a request was made to the Tribunal by the advocate for the petitioner-company to permit his to lead to evidence of the postal authority to prove that the money order was actually tendered to the employee and that the employee did not claim the same. According to the petitioner-company, this request was rejected and the main application under S. 33(2)(b) of the Act was directed to be placed for hearing and arguments next day. The petitioner has averred petitioner-company showed a letter from the postal authorities clearly stating that the money order was sent to the employee and the money order was not claimed by the employee and that in spite of the said letter being shown to the Tribunal, the Tribunal did not allow the petitioner-company to lead evidence to prove the communication from the postal department in spite of the repeated requests of the advocate for the company. A copy of this letter has been filed along with the petition as Ext. "c" and the original of the letter was produced before us. This letter is from the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Bombay City West Division, Bombay, and is addressed to the General Sales Manager, Parle Products Pvt Ltd. Ville Parle (East). Bombay-400 057. The material contents of that letter are as follows :