Case: M/s. Poddar Mills Limited Vs. Bhagwan Singh &amp; Another

2. On the 18th December, 1947, the respondents workmen werefor certain acts of misconduct. Since they were not available for service, copies of thewere forwarded to their addresses by registered post on December 20, 1967. The copies were also affixed on the notice board of the mills. Theposted to respondent 1 was returned undelivered on or about the 24th December 1967. However, thewhich was sent by registered post to the other respondent, was delivered to him on December 23, 1967. On that very day, letters were issued to the respondents fixing the date of enquiry on the 30th December 1967. Copies of those letters were posted on the notice board, and the mills also published in a local daily newspaper "Rashtradoot" in its issue of December 24, 1967, a notice to the respondents, informing them that the enquiry would be held on December 30, 1967, with regard to the charges preferred against them. Notices were also sent by registered post to their addresses which were returned undelivered. The respondents did not present themselves for enquiry before the enquiry officer who proceeded to hold it in their absence on December 30, 1967. The enquiry officer submitted his report on December 31, 1967. That report was considered by the manager of the mills, and he passed an order, directing the dismissal of the respondents. Pursuant to the order of the manager, dismissal orders were issued to the respondents on January 4, 1968, by registered post. These letters were, however, returned undelivered on January 8,1968. On January 8, 1968 theforwarded an application under S. 33 (2) (b) of the Act to the Industrial Tribunal for approval of the action. That application was dismissed.3. In the, application, which was filed under S. 33 (2) (b) of the Act, after setting out some of the facts that have been already mentioned, it was stated in para 11 that a voucher for an amount equivalent to each of the opposite partys one months wages had been sent along with the dismissal order under cl. (b) of(2) of S. 33 of the Act. The workmen filed a written statement raising some preliminary objections, but in para 3 of the written statement, it was alleged by them that theenquiry was completed on December 30, 1967, and the report was submitted on the same day. Thereupon the workmen were ordered to be dismissed with immediate effect on January 4, 1968. The application for approval of the dismissal of the workmen was made before the Tribunal on January 25, 1968, and one months wages as required under the Act, were given to the workmen only on February 2, 1968. Thus the appellant mills had failed to carry out the mandatory provisions of S. 33 (2) (b) of the Act.

Court's reasoning:
8. When the appeal was originally heard by us learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to certain documents which, according to him, establish that the service was effected on January 8, 1968 on the workmen concerned of the order of dismissal and that they were paid their wages on that very date as stated in para 5 of the special leave petition. We were of the view that these documents could not be relied upon as there was nothing to indicate that they had been admitted into evidence. After the hearing but before the announcement of the judgment a petition was moved inviting our attention to certain admissions made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents which was part of the record of this court. In that affidavit it was admitted. In paragraph 8 that the respondents had been served with the dismissal orders outside the mills gate on the evening of January 8, 1968 by the chowkidar of the mills. Even if that be so, there is no admission in the said affidavit that the wages were also paid on that day. It is apparent that the case now sought to be made out on the basis of what was stated in para 5 of the special leave petition, is quite different from the one which is to be found in the pleadings. We are unable to hold that there is any satisfactory proof that the wages were also paid to the respondent in accordance with the requirement of proviso to S. 33 (2) (b) of the Act. The point of law which was considered by the tribunal and which has been reagitated before us need not be decided in the above circumstances. As one of the essential requirements of the proviso to S. 33 (2) (b) of the Act was not satisfied the order of the Tribunal must be upheld though on different grounds.