The order of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment, or termination gives rise to an industrial dispute, and the workman is entitled to approach the Labour Court without exhausting the remedy under the Regulations.

( 1 ) THE matter has been referred to this Full bench as per the directions of the Chief Justice and has come up before us.

( 2 ) THE matrix of the case leading upto this reference in brief are that the petitioner was working with the 1st respondent - Karnataka state Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC for short) for the last 15 years before the filing of this petition. On the allegation that the petitioner remained absent from duty from november 7, 1997 to January 7, 1998, the divisional Controller (Disciplinary Authority) of the 1st respondent-KSRTC, by order dated april 13, 1999, terminated the services of the petitioner- workman. An industrial dispute was raised under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial disputes Act (ID Act for short), which was registered as I. I. D. No. 179/1999. After the pleadings, the Labour Court posted the matter for recording the evidence on the validity of the domestic enquiry. In the meanwhile the order of the Divisions Bench of this Court in divisional Controller, KSRTC v. G. M. D. Murthy, s/o Mallappa, W. A. 2685/2000 dated december 12, 2001 was circulated to all the labour Courts and the Industrial Tribunals in the State with certain directions. The Judges of the Division Bench in that case held that till the order of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination did not attain its finality upto revisional stage contemplated under Regulation 35 of the Karnataka State Road Transport corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) regulations, 1971 (Regulations for short), the action of the Corporation could not be said to have matured into an industrial dispute which (sic) entitled the workman to invoke the provisions of reference under the ID Act. The division Bench further observed that the industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts in the state were required to obtain statements both from the workman and the Corporation to the effect that the workman has exhausted all the statutory remedies under the Regulations and if so, to furnish copies of the orders passed by the appellant and revisional authorities, if there had been any appeal or revision, and thereupon the tribunal or Labour Court could examine the validity of final order only since earlier orders stood merged in the final order. The Division bench directed that the appellant or revisional authority, as and when cases of the workman are transferred to them, should examine the grievances of the workman in accordance with law by treating such proceedings to have been instituted within the period of limitation and must dispose of the appellate or revisional proceedings within a period of six months from the date of transfer or institution.

( 3 ) THE Labour Court, Mysore in view of the directions in the said judgments, by its order dated January 22, 2002 held that the Court was bound to follow the Division Bench decision of this Court and comply with the directions and as such directed the office to separate the cases of the workman of the State Road Transport corporation for transferring them to appropriate authorities as indicated by the High court.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-workman preferred a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned single Judge on consideration, ultimately by his order dated march 6, 2002 held that:"in the Division Bench Judgment of this court in W. A. No. 2685/2000, referred to earlier, the decision in Jai Bhagwan 's case is not brought to the notice of the Division bench. Having regard to the said decision of the Supreme Court and also having regard to the importance of the matter, I refer the writ petition to the Division Bench in exercise of power under Section 9 of the high Court Act, without expressing any opinion. Matter may be placed before the hon'ble Chief Justice for necessary orders in this regard. "

( 5 ) THE Division Bench of this Court while considering the point as the decision of Jai bhagwan v. Management of the Mabala