Summary
A bus conductor was dismissed in 2001 after a departmental inquiry found that he had collected fares from ten passengers without issuing tickets. On the Corporation's application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Industrial Tribunal held the inquiry defective but let the employer prove the charge before it. After full oral and documentary evidence, it approved the dismissal in 2015. The workman later raised an industrial dispute, about 19 years after the termination. The Labour Court set the dismissal aside and awarded 50% back wages up to his death, and the High Court upheld that award. The Supreme Court reversed. Once the Tribunal, a higher forum, had approved the dismissal on evidence led before it, its findings had become final and bound the parties. A fresh reference under Section 10 was not permissible, and John D'Souza was distinguished.
Issues
- Whether, after the Industrial Tribunal approved a dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act on evidence led before it to prove the misconduct, the workman could challenge the same dismissal in a later reference under Section 10.
- Whether John D'Souza v Karnataka SRTC, on the summary nature of Section 33(2)(b) proceedings, applied.
Provisions considered
- Section 33(2)(b), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947The Tribunal allowed the employer to prove the misconduct afresh and approved the dismissal on a full appreciation of evidence. Those findings attained finality and bound the parties. (¶¶ 2.2, 5.1, 5.2)
- Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947A later reference challenging the same termination was impermissible once it had been approved on evidence. The Labour Court could not take a view contrary to the Industrial Tribunal's findings. (¶¶ 5.1, 5.2, 6)
Held
- The Industrial Tribunal had specifically permitted the management to prove the charge before it, both sides had led oral and documentary evidence, and the Tribunal then approved the termination. Its order, which had become final, could not be reopened through a fresh reference. (¶ 5.1)
- John D'Souza did not apply on these facts. Once approval followed findings on evidence led before the Tribunal, the Labour Court, a lower forum, could not record contrary findings. (¶ 5.2)
- The High Court failed to consider the binding effect of the Tribunal's approval. The Labour Court's award setting aside the termination and awarding 50% back wages could not stand. (¶¶ 5.1, 6)
Result
Appeal allowed. The Labour Court's award setting aside the termination and the High Court's judgments upholding it were set aside. No costs.