Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner-Company, M/s. Permanent Magnets Ltd., challenged the judgment and order dated 28.4.2004 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai in Application (IT) No.1 of 2002 filed in Reference (IT) No.97 of 1992. The application was filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the company seeking approval for the dismissal of the Respondent-workman, Umashankar Pandey. The Tribunal dismissed the application, thereby setting aside the dismissal order dated 21.2.2002. The Respondent was employed as a semi-skilled A Grade Worker and was a confirmed employee. He was sanctioned leave from 13.6.2000 to 24.6.2000 and was expected to resume duties on 26.6.2000. He failed to report for duty on expiry of leave and was issued a charge-sheet-cum-suspension order dated 4.10.2000. The charge alleged that after 26.6.2000 the company did not receive intimation either to extend leave or any reason regarding the employee's failure to report to duty. The company claimed that letters were sent and there was no response. He was charge-sheeted for misconduct under Standing Order 24(1) for habitual absence without leave or absence without leave for more than 10 consecutive days. The Tribunal found that the employer failed to prove that the charge-sheet was served on the workman and that no proper inquiry was conducted. The High Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, upheld the Tribunal's order. The Court noted that the employer's bald assertions without supporting evidence were insufficient to prove service of the charge-sheet or conduct of a proper inquiry. The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Section 33(2)(b) Application - Approval of Dismissal - Employer's Obligation to Prove Service of Charge-Sheet - The employer sought approval for dismissal of a workman for unauthorized absence. The Tribunal dismissed the application, setting aside the dismissal. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, holding that the employer failed to prove that the charge-sheet was served on the workman and that no proper inquiry was conducted. The employer's bald assertions without supporting evidence were insufficient. (Paras 1-5) B) Industrial Law - Unauthorized Absence - Charge of Habitual Absence - Burden of Proof - The workman was charged with habitual absence under Standing Order 24(1). The employer claimed letters were sent but no response. The Tribunal found that the employer did not prove service of the charge-sheet or conduct a proper inquiry. The High Court affirmed that the employer must prove the charges and the inquiry process. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in dismissing the employer's application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and setting aside the dismissal order of the workman for unauthorized absence.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Tribunal's order dated 28.4.2004. The rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 requires employer to seek approval before dismissing a workman during pendency of proceedings
- employer must prove service of charge-sheet and conduct proper inquiry
- dismissal without valid inquiry is unsustainable
