CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus MD. NOOR ALAM

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 113 · Decided: 27-04-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
+. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
• 1 
G 
II 
-~ 
__ '..,1u 
CALCUITA STATE 1RANSPORT CORPORATION 
v. 
t 
MD. NOOR ALAM , 
April 21, 1973 
[A. N. GROVER AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, S. 33(2)(b)-Proviso object .of-Application 
for llpproval filed before Tribunal after dismissal of employee and payment of 
wages-1Vhether part of same transaction--Conduct of employer-Relevancy 
of-
The respondent was an employee of-the appellant. Certain disciplinary pro-
ceedings were taken against the 
respondent. 
These 
charges 
were enquired 
. into by the Disciplinary Officer of the appellant. That Officer found that the 
charges were proved against the respondent and submitted his report to 
the 
competent authoritY. 
On May 18, 1967, the competent 
authority, after con-
sidering the report of the Enquiry Officer recorded a note on the file expressing 
agreement with the report of the Enquiry Officer that the -respondent be reinov-
ed from service after giving him one month's ·wages and directing that simul-
taneous application be filed before the Tribunal (\"\-·here several disputes between 
the app.llant and its workmen, were pending), seeking approval -of the action 
taken against the respondent, as required u/s. 32(2) or the Act. A note -
dated June 22. 1967 was sent to the respondent in which he was informed that 
he was b:!ing removed from service with effect from July 1. 1967. This note 
reached him on June 26. 1967. 
One month's wages were remitted to him on 
June 28, 1967 by money order which he received on Jilly 1, 1967. An applica-
tion u/s_ 32(2) (b) of the Act was made on July 3. 1967. The Labour Court 
\\·bile finding that the enquiry report and the punishment awarded on the basis 
of the enquiry was iustified, held that the filing of the application u/s. 32(2) (b) 
of the Act on July 3, 1967 did not satisfy the requirement of the proviso thereto. 
On appeal by special leave, 
Allowing the appeal. 
HELD: (i) The proviso to S. 32(2)(b) 
contemplates three things: (I) 
dismissal or discharge; (2) payment of wages; and (3) making of an applica-
tion for approval to be simultaneous and to be part of the same transaction. 
The object is that when the employer takes action under s. 32(2) (b) by dis-
missing or discharging an employee be should 
immediately make payment to 
him or offer payment of wages for one month and also make an application to 
the Tribunal or to the I,abour Court, as the case may be, for approval. The 
employer's conduct should show that the three things contemplated under the 
proviso are parts of the same transaction. Simultaneous action has to_ be taken 
in these matters hut that does not mean that all the three things mentioned 
before should be done on the same day. [11'5 B] 
. 
. 
Strawboard Manufactuiing Co. v. Govind, (1962] Supol. 3 S.C.R. 618 
and 
P. JI. Ka!vani v. M/s. Air France, Calcutta [1964] 2 S.C.R. 104, relied on. 
. (ii) t.Jo h'.lrd and fast rule can be laid down in these matters. Each case 
muc;t be deci<led on its own facts. 
In the 
present case all the three things 
which were done were a part of the same transaction. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2458 of 196S. 
Appeal by sp::cial leave from the Judgment and order dated June 
29. 1968 of the Second Labour Court, West Bengal, Calcutta, in Case 
No. 229/33/67. 
B. Sen, D. N. Mukherjee. Soman Bose and G. S. Chatterjee, for the 
appellant. 
' 
· 
9-L94lSup.Cl/73 
114 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
( 1974) 1 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GROVER, J .-This is an appeal by special leave from an order of 
the Second Labour Court, West Bengal, rejecting an application under 
s. 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, hereinafter called the 
'Act'. filed by the appeilant seeking approval of an order of removal 
from service pasied against the respondent. 
The facts may be shortly stated. The respondent was an employee 
of the appellant. Certain disciplinary proceedings were taken against 
the. respondent who was working as conductor on charges which it is 
not necessary to mention. These charges were inquired into by the 
Disciplinary Officer of the appellant. That officer found the charges 
proveJ against the respondent and submitted his report to the compe-
tent authority i.e. Special Officer (Discipline). On May 18, 1967 the 
competent authority, after considering the report of the Inquiry Officer, 
recorded a note on the file expressing agreement wi 'h the report of the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.