Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (1.39 seconds)Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 31 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Jaipur Zila Sah. Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd vs Shri Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors on 17 January, 2002
4. Since the mandatory provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the said Act had
been violated, the workman through his counsel, sent a demand notice dated 10th
December, 2008 seeking reinstatement with full back wages. However, the
management did not reply to the notice nor did it accept the demand made by the
workman. It is in these circumstances that the workman, left with no other
alternative, filed the complaint under Section 33A read with Section 33(2)(b) of
the said Act before the Industrial Tribunal Number 1, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
WP (C) No1044 & 1045 of 2011 Page 3 of 19
where its earlier industrial dispute was pending. We may point out that although
the workman had taken the point that his dismissal from service was itself in
violation of the various principles such as non-issue of charge-sheet, not holding
of any domestic enquiry etc, the workman had, alternatively, taken the plea that
the management had not complied with the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the
said Act and therefore, the termination had become void ab initio or, in other
words, the termination has not at all taken effect. Before the said Industrial
Tribunal, the workman had taken support from the decision of the Supreme Court
in the case of Jaipur Z.S.B.Bank Ltd. v. Shri Ram Gopal Sharma and Anr :
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Batuk K. Vyas vs Surat Borough Municipality And Ors. on 17 June, 1952
14. It is in this regard that various decisions have been cited by the learned
counsel for the parties. We may point out that the decisions cited by the learned
counsel for the appellant do tend to support his contention that although there
WP (C) No1044 & 1045 of 2011 Page 10 of 19
may be contravention of the mandatory provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the said
Act, there is still the requirement of the Industrial Tribunal to decide the dispute
in totality and to go into the merits of the substantive dispute between the
employee and the employer in so far as the question of termination/dismissal is
concerned. For example, in Batuk K. Vyas (Supra), the Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court observed as under:-
The Hindusthan General Electrical ... vs Bishwanath Prasad And Anr. on 17 August, 1971
In other words, when the
conditions laid down in Section 33-A apply a workman who
is punished as mentioned therein does not have to wait for a
reference of an industrial dispute by an appropriate authority
under Section 10 of the Act for adjudication of the dispute
but can himself prefer his complaint which is to be treated in
the same way as a dispute under Section 10. These sections
do not lend themselves to the construction that as soon as the
Labour Court, Tribunal etc. finds that there has been a
violation of Section 33 it should award reinstatement. It
must go through the proceedings which would have to be
taken under Section 10 and it would be the duty of the
Labour Court etc.
1