JUDGMENT : Sawant. J. 1. These two cross petitions are directed against the order of the Industrial Tribunal passed u/s 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1942 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), rejecting the application for approval of the dismissal of the workman. The employer has filed writ petition No. 853 of 1983 against the impugned order because the approval application was rejected on the ground of short payment of notice pay whereas the employee has filed writ petition No. 2735 of 1983 against the finding recorded by the Tribunal that he was aware of the ex-parte inquiry held by the employer on December 14,1979. 2. The relevant facts leading to both the petitions are as follows:- The workman, according to him, was a member of the internal factory committee before a Union named the Janata Mazdoor Union came into existence in the company's establishment. After the Union came into existence, the workman joined it w.e.f. January 1,1978. It appears, that in the meanwhile, the Union had raised s an industrial dispute being Reference (IT) No. 1 of 1978 which was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Thane. On August 7, 1979 the workman attended the Tribunal for giving his oral evidence, However, no evidence could be recorded on that day as the Member of the Tribunal did not take seat on that day. One Shri Tiwari, Production-in-charge of the Company, was present in the Court and he asked the workman as to why he had come to the Tribunal. The workman was a drilling machine-operator and each machine operator was provided with helpers for bringing and taking out material. However on and from August 9, 1979, the Company stopped providing helpers to the machine operators including the petitioner. On August 14, 1979, the workman informed the Manager of the Company that he was denied the assistance of helper with the effect that the drilling machine was stopped, and asked the Manager to do the needful in the matter. According to the workman, instead of providing him with a helper, he was served with a charge-sheet on August 20, 1979, charging him with acts of misconduct, namely, wilful refusal and disobedience of the order of the superiors and refusal to do the work from August 9, 1979. The workman was also suspended with effect from August 20 1979. The workman submitted his written explanation on August 22, 1979. The workman was also suspended with effect from August 20 1979. The workman submitted his written explanation on August 22, 1979. According to the workman, after he submitted his written explanation, he heard nothing from the Company although the Company had his residential address with them. < It, however, appears that on December 5, 1979, a letter was addfessed by the Company to him at the address of the Janata Mazdoor Union which was received by him only 15 days after it was : received by the Union. It appears that in this letter, the date of inquiry communicated to the workman was December 10, 1979. Since the workman had not received the said letter prior to that date, he did not attend the inquiry. It further appears that according to the Company, thereafter the inquiry was held ex-parte on December 14,19/9 and by the order of January 29, 1980 the workman was informed that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were accepted and the Company had decided to dismiss him with immediate effect. 3. The Company thereafter made an application to the Industrial Tribunal u/s 33(2)(b) of the Act being Application (IT) No. 11 of 1980 in the pending Reference. (IT) No. 1 of 1978 praying that the action taken by it to dismiss the workman be approved. This application was contested by the workman. Trie Company filed documents and adduced oral evidence of the Inquiry Officer. The workman examined himself and his sister to show that no communication was received by him of the inquiry. The Industrial Tribunal thereafter passed the impugned order dismissing the Company's application on the ground that the payment or one month's wages tendered to the workman at the time of his dismissal was short by Rs. 125.35p., and therefore, the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) were not complied with. The Tribunal at the same time however recorded its finding that the inquiry held on December 14, 1979, was not without notice to the workman. It is for this reason that both the workman and the Company have preferred the present cross-petitions. 4. Mr. Shrikrishna, the learned counsel appearing for the Company contended that the workman was daily rated and, therefore, his wages would be for 26 and not 30 days. The Company had offered him 26 days' wages in compliance with the requirements of the said section and therefore the tender was valid. 4. Mr. Shrikrishna, the learned counsel appearing for the Company contended that the workman was daily rated and, therefore, his wages would be for 26 and not 30 days. The Company had offered him 26 days' wages in compliance with the requirements of the said section and therefore the tender was valid. As against this, it was the contention of Mr. Kochar on behalf of the workman, that one month's wages contemplated by the section were wages for 30 days and not for 26 days. The amount tendered to the workman was therefore short and hence there was no compliance with the provisions of the said section. He further submitted that in any case the workman's salary both as per the Minimum Wages Act and the Settlement between the Union and the management was Rs. 21.65 per day (Rs. 18.50 daily wage + Rs. 3.15 dearness allowance) and not Rs. 20.16 (Rs.18/- + Rs. 2.16 dearness allowance) as contended by the Company. Hence, even for 26 days the workman should have been paid Rs. 562.00 (Rs. 21.65 x 26) as one month's salary. What was tendered by the Company was Rs. 524.16 which was certainly snort even if one calculated wages only for 26 days. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Strawboard Manufacturing Co. Vs. Gobind, the Company was not therefore entitled to the approval under the said section. 5. The facts show that simultaneously with the application made in January, 1980, the employer had tendered to the workman only Rs. 524.16 calculating his wages for 26 days on the basis that he earned Rs. 20.16 per day (basic wage Rs. 18/- + Rs. 2.16 as dearness allowance). The workman by his reply filed on March 11, 1980 pointed out, among other things, that his wages per day were Rs. 21.65 i.e. Rs. 18.50 as basic wage plus Rs. 3.15 as dearness allowance, and further that he was entitled to the notice-pay for one month. Hence he ought to have been paid Rs. 649.50 (Rs. 21.65 x 30). Inspite of this objection raised to the calculation of the notice-pay, the Company did not take any steps to correct its mistakes till June 23, 1981, when for the first time, it offered to deposit the short-fall in the payment in the Tribunal. Hence he ought to have been paid Rs. 649.50 (Rs. 21.65 x 30). Inspite of this objection raised to the calculation of the notice-pay, the Company did not take any steps to correct its mistakes till June 23, 1981, when for the first time, it offered to deposit the short-fall in the payment in the Tribunal. To this application the workman rejoined by his reply of September 24, 1981 and pointed out that when he had pointed out the short fall in the payment as back as on March 11, 1980, it was not disputed and the Tribunal had also asked the Company at that time as to whether it wanted to lead any evidence over the point of short-fall and the Company had replied in the negative and had closed its evidence. Hence the Company's application of June 23, 1981 filed almost 11/2 years after he had pointed out the shortfall was not bona fide and was certainly not in compliance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 1962-I LLJ 420 (Strawboard case). 6. Apart from the want of bona fides of the Company, the workman was admittedly usually paid his salary monthly, although he was a daily rated workman. There is also no dispute that his monthly salary included his wages for weekly rest days as well. The workman's contention that both under the Minimum Wages Act as well as the Settlement, he was entitled to the daily wage of Rs. 21. 65 (Rs. 18.50 basic wage + Rs. 3.15 dearness allowance) is also not challenged. Hence the workman was entitled to Rs. 641.60 as one month's notice-pay, i.e. Rs. 21.65 x 30. Admittedly he was tendered only an amount of Rs. 524.60. The decision of the Madras High Court relied on by Mr. Shrikrihna on behalf of the Company and reported in 1965 II LLJ 420 (Palaniswami v. India Hume Pipe Co. will also not be helpful to the Company in the above circumstances. In that decision the admitted position was that the workman was daily rated and he was paid his monthly wages only for 26 days excluding the weekly rest days. Hence, it was held there that one month's salary had to be calculated by multiplying the daily wage by 26 days. In that decision the admitted position was that the workman was daily rated and he was paid his monthly wages only for 26 days excluding the weekly rest days. Hence, it was held there that one month's salary had to be calculated by multiplying the daily wage by 26 days. Even assuming further that the workman was not entitled to the salary for the weekly rest days, being entitled to daily wage of Rs. 23.65 he was in any case entitled to receive Rs. 562.90 i.e. Rs. 21.65 x 26. Thus, the notice-pay tendered to him viz. Rs. 524.60 fall short of the amount that was due to him and therefore also it was not in compliance with the provisions of the said section. 7. It is true that the question whether there has been a Compliance with the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) will depend upon the facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in that behalf. But as we have pointed out above, in the present case, not only there was a short-fall in payment which was not unsubstantial, but even after it was pointed out by the i workman, the employer had taken no steps to rectify its mistake for more than 11/2 years. Hence, we are of the view that there was no compliance with the provisions of the section. 8. Mr. Kochar, the learned counsel appearing for the workman, has rightly pointed out to us a decision of the Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court reported in 1984 Labour and Industrial Case at page 1358, where the learned Judge has held that there was no tender of proper notice-pay because the increment which fell due to the workman while the inquiry was pending against him, was not included in the notice-pay. That decision also supports the view we are taking. In the circumstances, we feel that there is no need to interfere with the impugned decision of the tribunal rejecting the application of the employer. Hence, Writ Petition No. 853 of 1983 is dismissed and the rule is discharged with no order as to costs. 9. As regards the workman's petition, we feel that the position raised in it need not be decided in the present proceedings. Hence, Writ Petition No. 853 of 1983 is dismissed and the rule is discharged with no order as to costs. 9. As regards the workman's petition, we feel that the position raised in it need not be decided in the present proceedings. It is well-settled that the findings recorded by the authority acting u/s 33(2)(b) are not binding on the parties and do not operate as res judicata in the adjudication proceedings. Hence, we express no opinion on that aspect of the matter. It will be open for the workman to agitate his grievance in that behalf before the proper authority if and when the necessity arises to do so. Subject to these observations Writ Petition No. 2735 of 1983 is dismissed and the rule granted therein is discharged with no order as to costs.