AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner appears in person. He has impugned order dated 8th December, 2022 made by the industrial Tribunal.
We have been able to understand that the management had dismissed petitioner and thereupon invoked provision under section 33(2)(b) in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to seek approval of the dismissal. That case is pending. Petitioner had challenged the proceeding saying it was not maintainable. The Tribunal, by impugned order said the issue of non-compliance of wages of dismissed employee is a relatable aspect of approval or non-approval in the application under section 33(2)(b).
Mr. Mishra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of the management.
On query from Court we have been able to ascertain from petitioner, his grievance is that there was omission to pay one month salary on the claimed subsequent dismissal. This is a question of fact to be determined by the Tribunal, in the proceeding. If the fact is determined to be as alleged by petitioner, the approval will not be granted. So, though petitioner has taken the point as a preliminary point, there must be adjudication on it by the Tribunal. In making impugned order the Tribunal has said so.
We do not find either illegality or material irregularity in impugned order. It is made clear, our not finding fault with impugned order will not preclude petitioner from urging the point at adjudication in section 33(2)(b) proceeding.
The writ petition is disposed of.
……………………………….