HINDUSTAN GENERAL ELECTRICAL CORPORATION LTD. versus VISW ANATH PRASAD AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1972] 1 S.C.R. 266 · Decided: 17-08-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.K. MITTER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

266 
HINDUSTAN GENERAL ELECTRICAL 
A 
CORPORATION LTD. 
v. 
VISW ANATH PRASAD AND ANOTHER 
August 17, 1971 
[G. K. MITTER, C. A. V AIDIALINGAM AND 
~P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes .4ct (14 of 1947), ss. 33 and 33A-Dismissal 
of emp/oyee-Pendency of Conciliation proceeding-Effect on dis-
missal. 
The appellant-management served on the 
respondent a charge 
sheet to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken 
against him for his misconduct in lodging a false complaint to the police 
against some of the officers of the appellant, and, after inquiry, dismissed 
him. The industrial dispute regarding the dismissal of this workman 
and some others was referred to the Labour Court which upheld the 
orders of dismissal. The Labour Court also rejected the plea that the 
orders of dismissal were passed during the pendency of conciliation 
proceedings and were therefore illegal, on the ground such pendency 
was not established. The High Court 
in a writ petition filed by the 
respondent, held that it was necessary for the Labour Court to first go 
into question whether or not there was ''. conciliation proceeding pending 
at the date of the dismissal order with a view to find out whether the 
impugned order of dismissal was passed in contravention of s. 33(2)(b) 
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and remitted the matter back to 
the Labour Court for deciding the question after giving an opportunity 
to the respondent. 
Allowing the appealjto this Court, 
B 
c 
D 
E 
HELD: (!) Section 33(2)(b) of the Act relates to the dismissal, 
F 
discharge etc. of a workman for any misconduct not connected with an 
industrial dispute during the pendency of a conciliation proceeding 
before 
a conciliation officer or Board 
or of any 
proceeding 
before a Labour Court or Tribunal, and prohibits such discharge or 
dismissal unless he has been paid wages for-one month and an application 
has been made by the employer to the authority before which the 
proceeding was pending for approval of such action. 
Sectioi;t~3-A enables 
G 
a workman who has been punished by dismissal 'or discharge 
etc., 
to 
make 
a complaint in writing to a Labour Court. 
Tribunal, or National Tribunal when an employer contravenes the pro-
visions of s. 33 during the pendency of the proceedings before a Labour 
Court, 
Tribunal or National Tribunal. If such 
a complaint is 
made the Labour Court or Tnounal is to adjudicate upon the complaint 
as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before it and in accordance 
H 
with the provisions of the Act submit its award to the appropriate 
Government; that is, the workman does not have to wait for a reference 
of an industrial dispute but can himself prefer his, complaint which is 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HlNDl)"STAN GEN. ELECT. CORP. v. VISHWANATH (Mitter, /.)267 
to be treated as a dispute under s. 10, and it would be the duty of 
the Labour Court to examine the merits of the case in the light of the 
principles formulated in the Indian Iron Steel Company case, [1958] 
S.C.R. 667. These sections do not require that as soon as the Labour 
Court or Tribunal finds that there has been a violation of s. 33 it should 
award reinstatement. [272C-H; 273A] 
(2) It has not been alleged in this case that conciliation proceedings 
were pending before the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal 
as envisaged . in s. 33A. Assuming that thete was a conciliation pro-
ceedings before the Jabour officer, s. 33A would not be attracted.[273B-C] 
\3) The Tribunal rightly refused to go into the question of the 
pendency of any conciliation proceeding; because, even if there was any 
such proceedings, it would make no difference to the result of the case. 
The Labour Court would still have to consider whether the employer's 
action was justified and would have to be satisfied that the allegations 
about want of good faith or victimisation or unfair Jabour practice were 
baseless, that the inquiry was not vitiated by basic errors or violation of 
any principles of natural justice, and that the order of dismissal was 
not perverse. [274D-F] 
In the present case, the Labour Court held on the material before 
it-the lodging of the complaint was not disputed, that the allegations 
were false was not denied and the humilitation to the officers was not 
contradicted that the respondent's action wa~ subversive of discipline 
which merited dismissal. [274G-H; 275F-H] 
Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen, [1958]

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