Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.26 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank ... vs Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors on 17 January, 2002
22. At this stage, this Court would like to refer to a five
Judge Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Jaipur
Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. vs. Ram Gopal Sharma
and others, (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 244, in which the
following question was referred for answer to the Larger Bench:-
M.D., Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs Neethivilangan, Kumbakonam on 4 May, 2001
"16. From the conspectus of the views taken in the
decisions referred to above the position is manifest that while
the employer has the discretion to initiate a departmental
inquiry and pass an order of dismissal or discharge against
the workman the order remains in an inchoate state till the
employer obtains order of approval from the Tribunal. By
passing the order of discharge or dismissal de facto
relationship of employer and employee may be ended but not
the de jure relationship for that could happen only when the
Tribunal accords its approval. The relationship of employer
and employee is not legally terminated till approval of
discharge or dismissal is given by the Tribunal. In a case
where the Tribunal refuses to accord approval to the action
taken by the employer and rejects the petition filed
14
under section 33(2)(b) of the Act on merit the employer is
bound to treat the employee as continuing in service and give
him all the consequential benefits. If the employer refuses to
grant the benefits to the employer the latter is entitled to have
his right enforced by filing a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution. There is no rational basis for holding that even
after the order of dismissal or discharge has been rendered
invalid on the Tribunals rejection of the prayer for approval
the workman should suffer the consequences of such invalid
order of dismissal or discharge till the matter is decided by
the Tribunal again in an industrial dispute. Accepting this
contention would render the bar contained in section
33(1) irrelevant. In the present case as noted earlier the
Tribunal on consideration of the matter held that the
employer had failed to establish a prima facie case for
dismissal/discharge of the workman, and therefore,
dismissed the application filed by the employer on merit. The
inevitable consequence of this would be that the employer
was duty bound to treat the employee as continuing in
service and pay him his wages for the period, even though he
may be subsequently placed under suspension and an
enquiry initiated against him."
1