JUDGMENT
Ashok Parihar, J.
1. Petitioner has challenged the award dated 16.1.2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, by which, the application under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) has been rejected as been not maintainable mainly on the ground that order of termination is discharge simiplicitor and not stigmatic.
2. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties I have carefully gone through the material on record.
Petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Conductor on daily wages basis vide order dated 25.5.1993 for six months. No further fresh extension order was issued by the respondents. Petitioner continued to work on the post even after expiry of period as mentioned in the initial letter of appointment. His services were terminated suddenly vide order dated 19.5.1995 with immediate effect only on the ground that his services are no more required.
The respondents, in reply before the Tribunal, could not explain as to why the services of the petitioner were not required w.e.f. 19.5.1995. There was no contract of service as such when the order of termination was passed. The condition mentioned in the initial letter of appointment could not have been relied upon by the respondents since the conditions expired after six months from the date of initial appointment.
3. Section 33 of the Act provides that during pendency of any conciliation proceedings before the Conciliation Officer or Board, an Arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of any industrial dispute no employer shall during the pendency of any such proceedings alter the conditions of service applicable to that workman, the terms of contract; whether express or implied between him and the workman and the conditions of service applicable to the workman immediately before commencement of such proceedings, If there is an violation of Section 33 of the Act, the concerned workman has been given a liberty to file a complaint before the authorities concerned under Section 33A and on receiving the complaint under Section 33A, the authority is supposed to adjudicate the complaint as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before it in accordance with the provisions of the Act and shall submit his or its award to the appropriate Government accordingly as per provisions of the Act.
4. In the present case, admittedly, an industrial dispute in regard to general demands was pending at the relevant time. Though, learned Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. Hanuman AIR 1968 SC 33, however, in the present case, there was no stipulation in the letter of appointment that the same will cease after a particular period or particular date, more so, when after expiry of the initial period of appointment there was no extension as such and petitioner was continued in service till his termination in May 1995. There is also no plea that the work performed by the petitioner had come to an end. Under the circumstances, the judgment relief upon by counsel for the respondents is not applicable in the present case. It is also well settled that the court or the Tribunal can always unveil the real reasons for such sudden termination alleged to be discharge simplicitor. Considering entire facts and circumstances, though, the order of termination may not be called a stigmatic order, however, it was definitely a case of change of service conditions during pendency of general demands and the complaint could not have been dismissed only on the ground of not been maintainable.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 16.1.2001 passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the complaint on merits after taking evidence of both the parties. The respondents shall be at liberty to raise all their objections on merits before the Tribunal at relevant stage. It is further clarified that observations, if any, made above shall not come in the way of the Tribunal while deciding the dispute on merits. The hearing of the complaint may be expedited by the Tribunal.