Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Looking to the aforesaid, writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 s. 33(2)(b)
- Constitution of India art. 12
Judgment
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that pursuant to the rejection of the application under section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') petitioner is entitled for consequential benefits treating termination to be illegal. Aforesaid is in view of the fact that dismissal order has not been approved by the Industrial Tribunal, Kota. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs Neethivilangan” (2002[92])FLR 555 Supreme Court) decided the issue involved herein. The petitioner, however, filed an application under section 33(c) (2) of the Act also after filing of this writ petition. Thus computation of due amount would be made now therein. Petitioner is an old person thus, at least, respondents may give directions to extend benefits as calculated by them or found admissible by them. 2 Learned counsel for respondents initially raised objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition not only on the ground that respondent company is not falling under the definition of the 'State' or its agency under Article 12 of the Constitution of India but also on the ground of pendency of the application under section 33(c) (2) of the Act.
I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and scanned the matter carefully. It is not in dispute that approval application moved by the company has already been dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal and the order therein has attained finality as management has lost up to the Division Bench of this court and no appeal has been filed thereupon. Now, consequence is to follow as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case supra. Petitioner has not been reinstated, as the company is said to have been closed. It is also a fact that an application under section 33 (c ) (2) of the Act of 1947 is pending decision. Thus, I am not inclined to grant prayer made herein as the computation of due amount would be made by the Industrial Tribunal but, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is expected of the respondent company that whatever 3 amount is found due and admissible to the petitioner according to them, it may be allowed in favour of the petitioner.
Operative part
Initially, learned counsel for respondent-company raised objection, however, has agreed that if any amount is found due to the petitioner, the respondent company will make payment within a period of two months from today. Looking to the aforesaid, writ petition is disposed of only on the agreed terms that any amount found due by the respondent-employer, pending consideration of the application under section 33 (c ) (2) of the Act, respondent-employer would pay it to petitioner within a period of two months from today. Rest of the controversy would be decided by the Tribunal in the pending application under section 33 (c ) (2) of the Act. bnsharma (MN Bhandari) J.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Looking to the aforesaid, writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s. 33(2)(b); Constitution of India — art. 12.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.