Case Note & Summary
The judgment arises from two cross writ petitions: one by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) challenging an Industrial Tribunal award dated 30 April 2013, and another by the workman Gulab Genu Gadankush (since deceased, represented by legal heirs) seeking implementation of the same award. The workman was employed as a Security Guard by BPCL. On 21 August 1997, he was dismissed from service without any domestic inquiry and without obtaining prior approval from the Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as an industrial dispute was pending. The workman raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the dismissal was illegal and void ab initio for non-compliance with Section 33(2)(b) and directed reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. BPCL challenged the award, arguing that the workman had abandoned service and that the Tribunal erred in granting full back wages. The workman sought enforcement of the award. The High Court, after considering the submissions, held that the Tribunal's findings were based on evidence and not perverse. The court noted that BPCL failed to hold any inquiry or seek approval, making the dismissal void. The court also rejected BPCL's argument that the workman had abandoned service, as no evidence was led. The court upheld the award, dismissed BPCL's petition, and allowed the workman's petition, directing compliance within eight weeks.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Dismissal without Domestic Inquiry - Section 33(2)(b) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Employer dismissed workman without holding domestic inquiry and without obtaining approval from Tribunal - Held that such dismissal is illegal and void ab initio - Tribunal correctly set aside dismissal and granted reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service (Paras 10-15). B) Industrial Law - Reinstatement with Back Wages - Section 11A Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Tribunal has discretion to award back wages - In absence of any evidence of gainful employment or misconduct, full back wages is justified - Held that reinstatement with full back wages is proper (Paras 16-20). C) Industrial Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226, 227 of Constitution of India - High Court will not interfere with findings of fact by Tribunal unless perverse or based on no evidence - Held that no interference warranted (Paras 21-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in granting reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service to the workman after setting aside the dismissal order passed without compliance with Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether the employer's challenge to the award is maintainable.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed BPCL's writ petition (WP 1715/2013) and allowed the workman's writ petition (WP 641/2015), directing BPCL to comply with the Tribunal award within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Section 33(2)(b)
- Section 10(1)
- Section 11A
- Section 17B
- Reinstatement
- Back Wages
- Domestic Inquiry
- Approval
- Dismissal
- Workman
- Employer
- Government Company
- Writ Jurisdiction
- Article 226
- Article 227
