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.