Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as amended by AP Act 32 of 1987, allows workmen, including those employed in industries run by or under the authority of the Central Government, to directly approach the Labour Court for adjudication of disputes relating to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment, or termination of employment, without seeking reference of the dispute by the Central Government under Section 10 of the Act.

P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) THE question that falls for our consideration in this writ petition is whether a workman employed by a corporation, industry or an authority of State or Central Government can invoke the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (inserted by A. P. Act 32 of 1987), and straightaway file an application before the Labour Court inviting adjudication of the dispute relating to his termination without seeking reference of the dispute by the Central Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The petitioner who was a Cotton Purchase Officer in the 1st respondent-Corporation was removed from service on 3/08/1987 as a result of disciplinary enquiry. On appeal, the order passed by the disciplinary authority was confirmed. Thereafter he filed I. D. 73 of 1988 in the Labour Court, Guntur under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. On a preliminary objection raised by the Management, the Labour Court, Guntur by its order dated 13/04/1989 came to the conclusion that in the absence of reference by the Central Government under Section 10 (1) read with Section 2-A of the Act, the petitioner cannot maintain the I. D. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court held that the Cotton Corporation of India Limited (1st respondent) is an industry carried on under the authority of the Central Government as all the shares are owned by the Government of India and that the ultimate authority to control the entire administration vests with the President of India. On this premise the Labour Court further held that in the absence of reference of the dispute by the Central Government, the Labour Court cannot entertain and adjudicate the dispute. Adverting to Sub-section (2) of Section 2-A, the learned Judge was of the view that it applied only to"employees working under the control of the State Government, but does not apply to the employees working in the Central Government undertakings". This order has been questioned by the aggrieved petitioner. Though the petitioner sought for the relief to set aside the order of removal, the same has not been pressed before us and the learned Counsel for the petitioner has rightly stated that propriety or otherwise of the removal order could be agitated before the Labour Court when once the matter is remitted to the Labour Court.

( 2 ) IT may be mentioned that four other workmen of the respondent-Corporation filed I. Ds. at about the same time and they were all disposed of by a common order which covers the I. Ds. filed by the petitioner as well. It appears that those employees questioned the common order by filing writ petitions. Our learned brother S. R. Nayak, J. , upheld the order of the Labour Court and dismissed the writ petitions holding that sthe provisions of Section 2-A (2) of the Act cannot be invoked and that the workmen could only seek reference by the Central Government under Section 10 of the Act. When this writ petition came up before our learned brother T. N. C. Rangarajan, J. , he felt that the decision rendered by S. R. Nayak, J. in the aforementioned W. Ps. required reconsideration, and therefore referred the matter to the Division Bench and that is how this writ petition is before us.

( 3 ) FINDING of the Labour Court that the respondent-Corporation is a Central Government undertaking and it is carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government has not been challenged before us. We agree with the said finding which has met the approval of S. R. Nayak, J. in the writ petitions aforementioned.

( 4 ) THE crux of the controversy herein whether, notwithstanding the provision for reference of the dispute by the Central Government as per Section 10 (1) (c) of the Act, a person claiming to be a workman could straightaway move the Labour Court under sub-section (2) of Section 2-A of the Act. Sub-section (2) was introduced by Andbra Pradesh Industrial

Click Here to Read the rest of this document