Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal by special leave arising from a Division Bench judgment of the Orissa High Court in CJC No. 1970/89 dated 19th July 1991. The first respondent was a conductor in the appellant-Corporation, the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation. While posted in the District of Baripada, the conductor committed misconduct. A disciplinary enquiry was conducted and on proof of misconduct he was dismissed from service. At the time of dismissal, Industrial Dispute Case No. 25 of 1981 under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was pending decision. The respondent filed an application under Section 33(1)(a) of the Act contending that since a dispute relating to an employee in Bhadrak Zone was pending adjudication in the Industrial Tribunal, his service could not be terminated without leave of the Tribunal under Section 33-A. The Industrial Tribunal dismissed the petition. However, in the writ petition, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside that order and held that the order of dismissal was bad in law. Pending the appeal before the Supreme Court, the respondent was reinstated in September 1993 on his undertaking that he would not claim any back wages. The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was correct in law. The Court noted that for administrative convenience, efficacy, and coordinated transport operations, the Corporation by resolution created divisions, zones, and special zones with regard to its area of operation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The respondent was working in Baripada Zone, while the pending industrial dispute related to an employee working in Bhadrak Zone. The appellant argued that zones were independent operational units with no functional integrity, and therefore no leave was necessary. The respondent contended that all zones formed an integral unit and pendency of an industrial dispute in one zone barred disciplinary action in another. The Supreme Court relied on Isha Steel Treatment, Bombay v. Association of Engineering Workers, Bombay & Anr. [(1987) 2 SCC 203] and Workmen v. Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [(1974) SCC 681] to hold that in the absence of functional integrity, separate offices or units cannot be deemed one unit. The Court found that the zones created by the Corporation were independent for operational efficacy and not integral parts of a single coordinated transport service. Consequently, the High Court's view that all zones were an integral unit and that pendency of a dispute in one zone barred disciplinary action in another was clearly wrong. The Court held that no leave under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act was required in such circumstances. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. The reinstatement of the respondent without back wages remained undisturbed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act - Leave for Dismissal during Pendency of Dispute - Functional Integrity of Separate Zones - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 10(1)(d), 33(1)(a), 33-A - Dispute concerned whether dismissal of a conductor in Baripada Zone without leave while industrial dispute concerning Bhadrak Zone employee was pending violated Section 33(1)(a); the Tribunal rejected the workman's application but the High Court held the dismissal bad in law. The Supreme Court held that zones created by the Corporation for administrative convenience are independent units and no functional integrity existed between them, hence no leave under Section 33-A was required; High Court's view was clearly wrong. Held that the management need not seek leave in such circumstances and appeal disposed of accordingly with reinstatement undisturbed (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in holding that all zones of the appellant-Corporation formed an integral unit and that pendency of an industrial dispute concerning an employee in Bhadrak Zone barred dismissal of an employee in Baripada Zone without leave under Section 33(1)(a) read with Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. High Court's view that all zones are integral unit and pendency of dispute in one zone bars disciplinary action in another zone was held clearly wrong. It was held that no leave of Industrial Tribunal under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was required. Reinstatement of respondent effected in September 1993 without back wages remained undisturbed. No costs.
Law Points
- Separate administrative zones created for operational convenience do not form an integral unit absent functional integrity
- pending industrial dispute concerning one zone does not bar disciplinary action in another zone
- leave under Section 33(1)(a) of Industrial Disputes Act not required
- reliance on functional integrity test from Isha Steel Treatment and Straw Board Manufacturing
