THE TATA IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD. versus D.R. SINGH

Citation: [1965] 3 S.C.R. 429 · Decided: 19-03-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE TATA IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD. 
v. 
D.R. SINGH 
March 19, 1965 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, c. J., K. N. WANCHOO AND 
B 
V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Aci, 
1947 (14 of 1947), s. 
Request to Tribunal to conSider 
workman-Rej)usal-Pro· 
priety of. 
Because certain industrial disputes were pending before the In· 
dustrial Tribunal at the relevant time. between the appellant and its 
C employees, the appellant filed an application under s. 33(2) (b) asking 
tor approval of action which it proposed to take against its employee- · 
the respondent. The appellant urged that this application was made 
"5 a matter of abundant caution and it wanted the Tribunal to con-
sider the question as to whether the respondent was a workman con-
cerned in the relevant industrial dispute at all before dealing with 
D the merits of the application. The Tribunal, being of the view that 
if the appellant thought that s. 33 did not apply, it should withdraw 
the application and take the consequences, dealt with the merits of 
the application. In appeal by special leave: 
HELD: The Tribunal was in error in not considering. the preli-
minary point raised by the appellant that the respondent was not a 
E workman concerned with the main industrial dispute and as such 
the application made by it was unnecessary. [ 431E] 
It is plain that in a situation like the present, where• judicial deci-
sions differed on the construction of the words "workman concerned 
in such dispute", even if the appellant took the view that the work-
man against whom it was taking action was not a workman concern .. 
r ed with the main industrial disputes, it would be justified in refusing 
to take the risk of deciding the said point for itself. It would ho legiti-
mate for an employer to make an application under s. 33 without pre· 
judice to his case that s. 33 did not apply. [431D-E] 
Case law referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 423 
of 
G 1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the order dated October 5, 1962 
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad in Ap-
plication No. 53 of l.961 in Reference Nos. 45, 56, 63 and 65 of 
1961. 
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General and I. N. Shroff, for the appel-
B !ant. 
Jitendra Sharma and Janardan Sharma, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Gajendragadkar, C. J. This appeal raises a very short point 
for our decision. The appellant, the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., 
L/P(N)6SCI 
429 
430 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
. (19651 3 B.0.B 
Jamadoba, filed a.11 application under s. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial A 
Disputes Act, 1947 (No. 14 of 1947) (hereinafter called "the Act"), 
before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad (here-
inafter called "the Tribunal"), asking for its approval of the action 
which it proposed to take against its employee, the respondent 
D. R. Singh. This application was made by the appellant, because 
certain industrial disputes were pending at the relevant time between B 
the appellant and its employees under References Nos. 45, 56, 63 
and 65 of 1961. This application was opposed by the respondent 
who filed his written statement. At the hearing of the application, 
the appellant urged before the Tribunal that though it had made 
the present application as a matter of abundant caution, its case 
was that it was not necessary to apply under s. 32(2), because the C 
respondent was not concerned with the industrial disputes which 
were pending between the appellant and its employees in the diffe-
rent References to wh,ich we have already referred. In other words, 
the appellant wanted the Tribunal to consider the question as to 
whether ·the respondent was a workman concerned in the relevant D 
industrial disputes at all, before dealing with the merits of its av.-
plication. The appellant's case was that one of the conditions prece-
dent for the applicability of s. 33 is that the workman against whom 
the employer seeks to take action falling under s. 33(2), must be a 
workman concerned in the main industrial disputes; if he is not so 
concerned, s. 33(2) will not apply. In order to avoid any complica·· 
tions and with a view to save itself from the charge that it had con-
E 
travened s. 33 of the Act, the appellant had no doubt made arl ap-
plication as a precautionary measure; that is why it wanted the 
Tribunal to consider its contention that. s. 33 did not apply as a 
preliminary point. The Tribunal took the view that the appellant 

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