DISTRICT TRANSPORT MANAGER (ADMN.) O.S.R.T.C., ORISSA versus DILIP KUMAR NAYAK AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 380 · Decided: 29-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DISTRICT TRANSPORT MANAGER (ADMN.) O.S.R.T.C., ORISSA 
v. 
DILIP KUMAR NAYAK AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 29, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Sections 33( J)(a) and 33-A. 
Transport Corporation-Several zones created for efficient transaction 
C of business and coordinated se1vices of transport-Each zone independent of 
its operational efficacy-Respondent-conductor working in a zone-Dismissal 
for misconduct-Challenge on the ground that his se1vices could not be 
tenninated without approval of Jndust1ial Tribunal as dispute relating to an 
employee in other zone was pending adjudication before the Industrial 
Tribunal-Rejection of claim by Tlibunal-High Cowt holding that order of 
D dismissal was bad in /aw-Appeal-Held, all the zones are not an integral 
part or parcel of coordinated transport se1vice as a single unit-Therefore, the 
decision of the High Couit that all the zones would be considered to be an 
integral unit of the Co1poration and pendmcy of industrial dispute in respect 
of one employee of a different zones would be a bar for the management to 
E take disciplinary action against an employee in that pa1ticular zone is clearly 
wrong-Jn such a case there is no need for the management to seek and 
obtain leave of the Industrial T1ibunal under Section 33-A of the Act. 
Isha Steel Treatment, Bombay v. Association of Engi.lieering Workers 
Bombay & Anr., [1987] 2 SCC 203 and Workmen v. Straw Board Manufac-
F 
turing Co. Ltd., [1974] SCC 681, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 15606 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.7.91 of the Orissa High 
G Court in O.J.C. No. 1970 of 1989. 
A.K. Panda for the Appellant. 
Ms. Sharda Devi for the Respondents. 
H 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
380 
....
DISIT. TPT. MANAGER (ADMN.) O.S.R.T.C. v. DK NA YAK 
Delay condoned 
Leave granted. 
381 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division 
Bench of the Orissa High Court in CJC No. 1970/89 dated 19th July, 1991. 
A 
The respondent No. 1 was a conductor in the appellant-Corporation. While B 
he was posted in the District of Baripada, he committed misconduct. 
Disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him and on proof of his mis-
conduct, he was dismissed from service, while Industrial Dispute Case No. 
25of1981 under Section 10 (l)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for 
short, the "Act") was pending decision. The respondent filed an application C 
under Section 33 ( 1) (a) of the Act contending that since the dispute 
relating to an employee in Bhadrak zone was pending adjudication in the 
Industrial Tribunal, without the leave of the Tribunal under Section 33-A 
his service could not be terminated. The Tribunal dismissed the petition 
but in the writ petition, the Division Bench in the impugned judgment has 
set aside that order and held that the order of dismissal is bad in law. It is D 
now admitted that pending this appeal, the respondent was reinstated in 
September 1993 on his undertaking that he will not claim any back-wages. 
The question is : whether the view taken by the High Court is correct 
in law? It is not in dispute that for administrative convenience, efficacy and 
E 
coordinated transport operation and transaction of business, the Corpora-
tion by its resolution created divisions, zones and special zones, with regard 
to the area of its operation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The respondent 
is working in Baripada Zone, while the pending dispute in the Industrial 
Dispute case relates to the employee working in Bhadrak Zone. 
It is seen that this Court in Isha Steel Treatment, Bombay v. Associa-
tion of Engineering Workers, Bombay & Anr., [1987) 2 SCC 203, had con-
sidered a similar question whether there was functional integrity between 
the office at the Church gate and the factory at Trombay. It was held that 
F 
in the absence of any functional integrity, separate offices could be created G 
as independent units and they cannot be deemed as one unit. In support 
thereof, this Court had relied on an earlier judgment in Workmen v. Straw 
Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd., [1974) SCC 681. The same ratio applies to 
the facts of this case. As stated earlier, for efficient transaction of the 
business and coordinated services of the transport operations, several 
zones have been created by the Corporation and each zone is independent H 
382 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.