The Labor Court is not precluded from deciding the dispute on merits even if there is violation of Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D Act: Karnataka High Court

 

A Single Bench of Justice Jyoti Mulmani observed that Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, the Court noted that the allegation of decimation and equality is not available to the workman in the matter of disciplinary proceedings, while dealing with a petition filed by the second against the order of the Labor Court. 

The facts in brief were that the second petitioner was working as a medical representative at Bangalore from May 2, 2005 under the respondent- company. After the intervention of the union FMRAI, the petitioner was transferred to Bangalore. Since he could not afford an independent accommodation, the second petitioner was staying at the guest house of the first petitioner in Bangalore. It was stated that the same was not tolerated by the respondent- company and it started harassing the second petitioner. It was also stated that a charge sheet was issued on May 30, 2007 to the second petitioner which was replied to by him through a letter dated June 6, 2007. 

Thereafter, the second respondent was called for inquiry on June 25, 2007. It was the case on behalf of the petitioner that he was not given any opportunity to defend himself and the inquiry was completed in one day with all the members being from the respondent- company. Consequently, the respondent- company in its letter dated August 6, 2007 terminated the services of the second petitioner. In pursuance of the same, the second petitioner filed an application. The Labour Court, however, rejected the petition through an order dated April 27, 2012. 

Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 

The Court after hearing the rival contentions, posed the following questions for consideration: Whether the Labour Court is justified in confirming the order of Punishment? Whether violation of section 33 (2) (b) can be raised in the absence of pleadings? Whether there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? Whether the second petitioner is deprived of legitimate expectation of better service conditions? 

 

To answer the questions stated above, the Court deemed it fit to first analyse the facts of the present case. In view of the same, the Court observed that the respondent- company called into question the low performance of the second petitioner several times through letters; however, his performance did not improve which compelled the respondent- company to take disciplinary actions against him.

The Court further noted that against the disciplinary enquiry the petitioner was given a chance to represent his case. His case was though found unsatisfactory and therefore his services were eventually terminated with effect from August 10, 2007. 

Further with respect to the challenge made to order of the Labour Court, the Court analysed Section 10 (4A) of the I.D. Act.  In view of the same the Court stated that from a simple reading of the provision it can be construed that the amended section gives the liberty to the individual workman who has been discharged, dismissed, retrenched or terminated may directly approach the Labour Court for adjudication of such an application in the same manner as a dispute referred for adjudication under section 10(1)(c) of the I.D Act.  Thus,  the Labour Court had to dispose of the application under Section 10(4-A) of the Act in the same manner as a dispute referred to by the Government for adjudication, the Court noted. 

It was further observed that it is a settled proposition of law that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court Industrial Tribunal in Industrial disputes is limited to the points specifically referred for its adjudication and matters incidental thereto and it is not permissible to go beyond the terms of the reference. An Industrial Adjudicator constituted under the Act is not vested with any inherent power or jurisdiction.

With respect to the same, the Court opined that the The Industrial Adjudicator rightly adjudicated the dispute between the parties. It is needless to say that the Industrial Adjudicator in extenso referred to the material on record and passed the award. There is substantial compliance of section 10 (4A) of the I.D. Act. 

Next, with respect to the contention of the petitioner that several industrial disputes were lying pending at the time of termination notice being granted to him, hence the respondent- company ought to have filed an application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the I.D. Act. With respect to the same, the Court observed that if there was violation of Section it should have been specifically pleaded   and brought in evidence. 

It was further held that the Industrial Adjudicator i.e The Labour Court is not precluded from deciding the dispute on merits even if there is violation of Section 33(2) (b) of the I.D Act. When the dismissal is justified, the Labour Court cannot interfere with the order of punishment just for violation of Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D Act. Further reliance was placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases, Rajasthan State Transport Corporation, Management of Karur Vyasa Bank and Managing Director, NEKRTC Karnataka. 

Further with respect to Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, the Court noted that the allegation of decimation and equality is not available to the workman in the matter of disciplinary proceedings. The concept of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be enforced in a negative manner, the Court remarked.

On last contention with respect to legitimate expectation, the Court opined that once the employee accepts the term and condition of the Appointment Order and also the other prevailing service conditions, he is estopped from claiming better benefits. 

Thus in light of the above observations, the Court dismissed the writ petition.  

 

 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure