Fri. Sep 18th, 2020

Rajbir Singh (Since Deceased … vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 8 September, 2015

2 min read

1. Before adverting to the facts of the present case it would be
appropriate to note the legal position in relation to the scope of
adjudication of an application for approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the
ID Act, 1947 which provides as under:
2. In the decision reported as AIR 1959 SC 389 M/s.G.Mckenzie and
Co. Ltd. Vs. Workmen & Ors. the Supreme Court laid down that Section
33 ID Act, 1947 does not confer any jurisdiction on the Tribunal to
adjudicate on a dispute but it merely empowers the Tribunal to give or
withhold permission to the employer during the pendency of an industrial
dispute to discharge or punish a workman concerned in the industrial
dispute; in deciding whether permission should or should not be granted

the Industrial Tribunal is not to act as a reviewing tribunal against the
decision of the management but to see that before it lifts the ban against
the discharge or punishment of the workmen, the employer makes out a
prima facie case. The nature and scope of proceedings under Section 33
shows that removing or refusing to remove the ban on punishment or
dismissal of workmen does not bar the raising of an industrial dispute
when as a result of the permission of the Industrial Tribunal the employer
dismisses or punishes the workmen. As the purpose of Section 33 of the
Act is merely to give or withhold permission and not to adjudicate upon
an industrial dispute, any finding under Section 33 would not operate as
res-judicata and bar the raising of an industrial dispute.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply