( 1 ) THIS writ petition raises a question of general importance, in the field of adjudication, under the Industrial disputes Act (for short the Act ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner is employed as a driver in the A. P. S. RT. C. On 15-5-1997, he was entrusted with the duty of driving a bus, on the route from Hyderabad to amarachinta. At 11:15 p. m. , on that day, an accident took place, involving the Bus, driven by the petitioner, and a bullock cart; resulting the death of one person and a bullock. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, by the Corporation. Simultaneously, the petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 304-A of I. P. C.

( 3 ) IN the departmental enquiry, petitioner was found guilty of misconduct. The 3rd respondent passed an order dated 27-10-1997, removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. On 12-12-1997, the 2nd respondent allowed the appeal, in part; set aside the order of removal, and directed re- appointment of the petitioner, as a fresh candidate. Review filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent was rejected.

( 4 ) PETITIONER raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Act, before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, and it was numbered as I. D. No. 149 of 2002. Respondents contested the matter. The labour Court passed an award, dated 24-3-2005, taking the view that, it is not open to the petitioner, to raise an industrial dispute, under Section 2-A (2) of the Act, once he was reinstated into service, and in that view of the matter, the I. D. is not maintainable. The petitioner challenges the same.

( 5 ) SRI V. Narsimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been removed from service, and Section 2-A (2) of the Act, takes in its fold, all disputes, that arise out of such action. He contends that the fact that the petitioner was taken into service, as a fresh candidate, denying him the benefit of the past service, etc. , are relatable to such removal, and thereby, fall within the scope of that provision. Learned Counsel submits that having regard to the object underlying the Act, in general, and Section 2-A (2) of the Act, in particular, the Labour Court was not justified in rejecting the I. D. He places reliance upon the judgment of the Orissa high Court reported in Joseph N. K. Pradhan v. Industrial Tribunal, 1976 lab. IC 1396.

( 6 ) SRI V. T. M. Prasad, learned Standing counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that Section 2-A (2) can be pressed into service, only when an employee is suffering the consequences, of dismissal, removal, or discharge from service, and it does not apply to cases, where an employee has been reinstated, after removal. It is urged that the reinstatement of the petitioner, as a consequence of the orders passed by the appellate authority, the whole procedure partakes a different character, and that no exception can be taken to the award passed by the Labour Court.

( 7 ) THE facts, that gave rise to the filing of this writ petition, have already been narrated, with permissible brevity. There is no contest between the parties, as to the said facts. The Labour Court refused to adjudicate the industrial dispute, raised by the petitioner, on the sole ground that it does not fall within the scope and ambit of section 2-A (2) of the Act.

( 8 ) THE preamble of the Act itself makes it clear that it was enacted with a view to make provision for investigation and settlement of industrial disputes, and other related purposes. A close scrutiny of the various provisions of the Act discloses that the object of the Legislators was to address the various issues, relating to the industry, in general, in contradistinction, to the individuals concerned therewith, as employers or employees. The definition of various terms, such as workman, industry, employer, or incorporation of elaborate provisions for general phenomena, such as strikes,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document