Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
DISTRICT TRANSPORT MANAGER (ADMN.),O.S.R.T.C., ORISSA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DILIP KUMAR NAYAK & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/11/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in CJC No.
1970/89 dated 19th July, 1991. The respondent No. 1 was a
conductor in the appellant-Corporation. While he was posted
in the District of Baripada, he committed misconduct,
Disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him and on proof
of his misconduct, he was dismissed from service, while
Industrial Dispute Case No.25 of 1981 under Section 10(1)
(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, the
"Act"] was pending decision. The respondent filed an
application under Section 33 (1) (a) of the Act contending
that since the dispute relating to an employee in Bhadrad
zone was pending adjudication in the Industrial Tribunal,
without the leave of the Tribunal under Section 33-A his
service could not be terminated. The Tribunal dismissed the
petition but in the writ petition, the Division Bench in the
impugned judgment has set aside that order and held that the
order of dismissal is bad in law. It is now admitted that
pending this appeal, the respondent was reinstated in
September 1993 on his undertaking that he will not claim any
back-wages.
The question is: whether the view taken by the High
Court is correct in law? It is not in dispute that for
administrative convenience, efficacy and coordinated
transport operations and transaction of business, the
Corporation by its resolution created divisions, zones and
special zones, with regard to the area of its operation
under the Motor Vehicles Act. The respondent is working in
Baripada Zone, while the pending dispute in the Industrial
Dispute case relates to the employee working in Bhadrak
Zone.
It is seen that this Court in Isha Steel Treatment,
Bombay v. Association of Engineering Workers, Bombay & Anr.
[(1987) 2 SCC 203] had considered a similar question whether
there was functional integrity between the office at the
Churchgate and the factory at Trombay. It was held that in
the absence of any functional integrity, separate offices
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
could be created as independent units and they cannot be
deemed as one unit. In support thereof, this Court had
relied on an earlier judgment in Workmen v. Straw Board
Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [(1974) SCC 681]. The same ratio
applies to the facts of this case. As stated earlier, for
efficient transaction of the business and coordinated
services of the transport operations, several zones have
been created by the Corporation and each zone is independent
of its operational efficacy. Therefore, all the zones are
not an integral part or parcel of coordinated transport
service as a single unit. In these circumstances, the
decision of the High Court that all the zones would be
considered to be and integral unit of the Corporation and
pendency of industrial dispute in respect of one employee of
a different zones would be a bar for the management to take
disciplinary action against an employee in that particular
zone is clearly wrong. We are of the opinion that in such a
case there is no need for the management to seek and obtain
leave of the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33a-A of the
Act.
The appeal is according disposed of. However, in view
of the understanding between the appellant and the workmen
and as he has already been reinstated without any back-
wages, this order would not stand as an impediment in the
way of the respondent to continue to be in service. No
costs.