TMI Blog1978 (3) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e or was it an outcome of any unfair labour practice or victimisation ? Whether the respondent was entitled to any payment in the interregrium between the conclusion of the enquiry and the final order of the Tribunal ? Held that:- Allow the appeal - remit the case to the former with the direction to treat the appellant’s aforesaid application dated November 10, 1966 as one under section 33 (3) (b) of the Act and to dispose of the same with utmost despatch not exceeding six months of receipt of the order, after going into the point get out above. The parties shall be allowed to- adduce such evidence as they may like in respect of the aforesaid points. The costs of this appeal shall be paid by the appellant to the 2nd Respondent W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e latter at the garden. office. As the act of the respondent prima facie constituted a grave misconduct under clause 10(a) (2) of the Standing Orders of the Establishment, a charge sheet was served on him on September 19, 1966 accusing him of obtaining money through Mansid Munda from the local banker by forging the Manager s signatures on the aforesaid cheque and calling upon him to submit his explanation in regard thereto which he did on September 22, 1966. As the explanation tendered by the respondent (which was one of denial) was found to be unsatisfactory, an enquiry into the charge was held by Mr. R. R. L. Pennoll, Superintendent of the Company. The respondent who was present throughout the enquiry was afforded opportunity to cross-exa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t you will he dismissed from the service of the company. This punishment will not be put into effect pending orders of the competent authority under section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in the meantime you will remain tinder suspension. As my enquiry into the charge against you has concluded, you will not receive any subsistence allowance during this period of suspension. Yours faithfully, Sd/1- W. P. Swer, Assistant-in-Charge." On the same date, an application was made by the Management before the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Gauhati under section 33(2) of the Act. On November 17, 1966, the respondent addresed the following communication to the Manager of the Borpukhurie Tea Estate : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ading of the application will clearly indicate that the Management in fact intended to, comply with the provisions of section 33(3) of the Act and not of section 33(2) of the said Act, although the application is described as such. 3. That even the Management s letter dated 10 th November, 1966 addressed to Sri N. K. Ganguli will also indicate that action was being taken U/s 33(3) of the I.D. Act. It is, therefore, prayed that the, Hon ble Tribunal may be pleased to treat the application as one U/s 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and for this etc." By his order dated July 10, 1967, the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal refused to treat the Management s original application under section 33 (2) of the Act a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant to treat its original application dated November 10, 1966 as one under section 33 (3) (b) of the Act ignoring the Teal substance thereof. We find considerable force in the submissions made by Mr. Nariman. The facts and circumstances of the case especially the underlined portions of the correspondence reproduced above i.e. the appellant s very first letter dated November 10, 1966 to the respondent which expressly stated that as the latter had been found guilty after due enquiry, he would be dismissed from service of the Company but the punishment would not be put into effect pending orders of the competent authority under section 33 of the Act and in the meantime he would remain under suspension, and the respondent s own application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this connection : Again, as in most questions which come before the Courts, it is the substance which matters and not the form; and every fact and circumstance relevant to the ascertainment of the substance deserve careful attention." It is equally important for the Court to remember that it is necessary sometimes in appropriate cases for promotion of justice to construe the pleadings not too technically or in a pedantic manner but fairly and reasonably. Keeping in view therefore the totality of lie facts and circumstances of the case and the purport of the observations of this Court. In Patna Electric Supply Co Ltd. Patna v. Bali Bai Anr.(1) to. the ,effect that the Labour Courts and Tribunals are competent to allow the par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
