Court affirms Industrial Tribunal's decision on workmen's dismissal challenge.

The court upheld the Industrial Tribunal's decision in a writ petition challenging the dismissal of workmen by a Public Limited Company. The Tribunal found the company failed to comply with Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act by not paying one month's wages to dismissed workmen and not conducting a proper domestic enquiry. The court agreed with the Tribunal's findings, emphasizing the importance of uniform wage calculations, fair enquiry processes, and payment of suspension allowance. The petitioner's request for remand was denied, and the court dismissed the writ petition, underscoring the need for justice in the dispute.

---

---

Issues:
1. Compliance with Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
2. Conduct of domestic enquiry and compliance with principles of natural justice
3. Payment of suspension allowance during the period of suspension

Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an order made by the Industrial Tribunal regarding the dismissal of workmen by a Public Limited Company. The Tribunal rejected the company's applications for approval of dismissal orders due to non-compliance with Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, which requires payment of one month's wages to dismissed workmen. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the wages paid, including the exclusion of certain entitlements like milk and biscuits. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the need for uniformity in wage calculations and inclusion of all entitled benefits.

2. The Industrial Tribunal also ruled that the company failed to conduct the domestic enquiry properly, violating principles of natural justice. Instead of recording statements of witnesses in the presence of the workmen, pre-recorded statements were used, denying the workmen a fair opportunity to defend themselves. The court agreed with this finding, highlighting the importance of a fair and transparent enquiry process.

3. Additionally, the Tribunal held that the company's failure to pay suspension allowance to the workmen during the suspension period further tainted the enquiry process. Citing a Supreme Court case, the Tribunal concluded that this failure affected the validity of the enquiry. The court supported this decision, indicating that the failure to provide suspension allowance undermined the fairness of the entire disciplinary process.

4. The petitioner's argument for a remand to lead evidence was rejected by the court, as the Tribunal had already ruled against the company on all points. Since the company had not complied with the statutory requirements of Section 33(2)(b), seeking further opportunities to rectify the omission was deemed unjustified. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's order and emphasizing the importance of delivering justice to all parties involved in the dispute.

---