JUDGMENT
U.N. Sinha C.J. and J. Narain, J.
1. The writ petitioner has filed this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying, that an award incorporated in Annexure 2 given by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna, dated the 21st August, 1970 be quashed by a writ of certiorari,
2. There was a reference to the Labour Court by the State Government, as to whether the dismissal of 15 erstwhile employees of the National Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works, Kankar Bagh Road, Patna, was justified or not and if the dismissal was not justified, to what reliefs these dismissed employees were entitled and the Presiding Officer has held, on a consideration of all the materials on record, that these employees had properly been dismissed on the charges levelled against them, and that they were not entitled to reinstatement or to any other relief.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged one point only, on which he has referred to paragraph 34 of the award. The contention of the learned Counsel is, that an earlier reference case, numbered as 29 of 1968, was pending between the management of the National Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works and their workmen before the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, Patna, and the management had dismissed these employees, without obtaining the approval of the authority, before which the earlier proceeding was pending. The reference of case No. 29 of 1968 has been placed before us from the Gazette and the reference was in the following words:
(1) Whether existing wage scale of the workmen is proper ? If not,
what should be the points of fixation of wage scale and from which date it be fixed ?
(2) Whether the workmen are entitled to dearness allowance ? If so, what should be the quantum? Besides, whether it will be proper to link it up with the cost of living index ? If so, what should be its rate and from when?
Comparing the reference of case No. 29 of 1968 and the present dispute referred to the Labour Court, it is difficult to say that the concerned employees were dismissed for any misconduct connected with the dispute which was pending in reference case No. 29 of 1968. On what acts of misconduct the concerned employees were dismissed have been mentioned and dealt with Li detail by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court and it is very difficult to accept the contention raised on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioner based on Section 33(2)(b) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Moreover, as a question of law it has been held more than once by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, that mere non-compliance of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act does not entitle the dismissed employee straightaway to an order of reinstatement. Reference may be made to the case of The Hindusthan General Electrical Corporation Limited v. Bixhwanaih Prasad . So far as the present proceeding is concerned, no infirmities have been ion id on merit by the Labour Court and, therefore, merely on the ground that Section 33(2)(b) was not dealt with, the dismissed employees cannot be entitled to an order of reinstatement. The writ application must, therefore, fail and it is dismissed, but without cost.