AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Cyriac Joseph, J.
(1) Heard Mr. Vohra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Luthra learned Counsel for respondent 2.
(2) The grievance of the petitioner is that the application filed by respondent 2 before respondent I u/s 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act for approval of the action of respondent 2 in removing the petitioner from service has been pending for disposal since 3rd August, 1994. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that under Sub-section (5) of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the said application had to be heard and disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. The proviso to Subsection (5) of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act confers power on the Authority to extend the said period for reasons to be recorded in writing. Since learned Counsel for respondent 2 has no objection in directing respondent 1 to dispose of the abovementioned application expeditiously. I do not consider it necessary to call for the files of respondent 1 and to ascertain the reasons for delay.
(3) Accordingly, this petition is disposed of directing respondent I to dispose of the application filed by the respondent 2 u/s 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act as expeditiously as possible bearing in mind the provisions of Subsection (5) of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
(4) Let a copy of this order be communicated to respondent No. 1.