to the bona fide conclusion that the employees were guilty and dismissing them from service would not amount to unfair labour practice and there was no victimisation. While deciding the issue No.4, the 2nd respondent considered the two letters given by the officials of the Management showing the monthly salary of the respective employees. In the case of K.Dhanaraj, by letter dated 15.07.2011, the concerned official stated that the monthly salary payable to him was Rs.18,298/-. Insofar as the employee R.Sugumaran, the Authority has stated that his monthly salary was Rs.15,941/-. It is not in dispute that out of Rs.18,298/-, Rs.15,588.70p. was paid to K.Dhanaraj and out of Rs.15,941/-, Rs.15,712.50p., was paid to Sugumaran. The difference in payments were also subsequently paid, but of course, after a period of four months. Taking note of this fact, the 2nd respondent held that the difference amounted to non-compliance of section 33[2][b] of the Act and declined approval. Thus, it has to be seen as to whether the orders passed by the 2nd respondent is sustainable and whether the Management failed to comply with the provisions of the Act.
