Saraswat Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs A.V. Aradhya and Another

Patankar, J.—Rule.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 waives service the Respondent No. 2 is a formal party. By consent Rule made returnable and heard forthwith.

This Petition is directed against the Judgment dated 10th January 1997 whereby the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 has disposed off the Approval Application pending before it.

The Petitioner Bank approached the Tribunal with an Application to seek approval of its action against the Respondent No. 1. The Petitioner Bank was under the apprehension that as a dispute was pending before the Tribunal and the Respondent No. 1 is the concerned workman the Approval is required. On a consideration of the material before it, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that though the Reference No. CGIT-2/33 of 1988 affected only two Stenographers and one Clerk and as such it could not be said that the workman in respect of whom the Approval was sought would have affected by the decision of the Award and thereafter proceeded to hold that Approval was not required. The Learned Judge relied on the Judgment of this Court in the case of Parshuram Pottery Works, Dhrangadhra Vs. Its Workmen, . However, after having held that no approval was required, the Tribunal further proceeded to hold that the enquiry which was held is not fair and proper. It is this part of the judgment that is assailed in this Writ Petition.

Shri Naik, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that once the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that no permission/approval was required, the Court became functus officio and ought not to have proceeded further to hold about the fairness and/or propriety of the inquiry. Shri Bukhari the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 on the other hand contends that the reliance placed by the Learned Judge of the Tribunal in the case of New Jahangir Vakil Mills (supra) was misplaced as the said Judgment has been impliedly overruled by subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of New India Motors (P) Ltd. New Delhi Vs. K.T. Morris, .

What is in issue today is whether the Industrial Tribunal was right after having held that no permission/approval was required to enquire into the fairness and propriety of the enquiry. As already pointed out once the Tribunal gave a finding that approval was not required, it became functus officio. No doubt, Order XIV Rule 6 of the CPC provides that Court should pronounce its judgment on all issues which arises before it. The instant case is not such a case. All that was there before the Tribunal was approval should be granted or refused and once the Tribunal hold that the approval was not required, it ought not to have proceeded further. It is only on this account that the findings of the Tribunal on the point of fairness of the enquiry are being set aside and not on merits which is not being gone into. The issue regarding fairness of the enquiry and the perversity of the finding held against the Respondent No. 1 is kept open for both the parties to be agitated in a separate proceeding in a full fledged Reference in respect of the termination of the services of the Respondent No. 1 have no doubt that the said authority shall consider it on merits and afresh and without being influenced by any of the observations made in the impugned order, In view of the above, no comment is required to be made on the reliance placed by the Tribunal on the Judgment in the case of New Jahangir Vakil Mills (supra) or whether it stands impliedly overruled by New India Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. (supra).

With the above observations Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to the costs.