IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
The Management of R.V. Educational Institutions Rashtreeya Sikshana Samithi Trust - Petitioner
Versus
Mr S.J.Kumar – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3963 OF 2021 (L-TER)
Decided On : 23-03-2023
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33 (2) (b), 33(1), (2), (5), 17B - Industrial Disputes (Karnataka) Rules, 1957 - Rule 61(2) - Workman - Order of reinstatement - Payment of full wages - Issue a writ in nature of certiorari and/or any other writ or Order and quash and set aside impugned order – If reinstatement had not been challenged, workman would have been reinstated, would continue work and be paid for work done - Para 20.4.
Finding of the Court: Petition taken up for final hearing, application under Section 17B was not considered - That does not however preclude or take away right of workman inasmuch as entitlement of workman is defined under Section 17B of I.D.Act and said right arises immediately upon a challenge made by employer of an order of reinstatement - If reinstatement had not been challenged, workman would have been reinstated, would continue work and be paid for work done - It is only on account of reinstatement order being challenged, workman has no work and no wages - If workman were not employed and/or if employer were unable to establish such employment, right under Section 17B is absolute and said payment is required to be made by employer on a challenge being made to reinstatement order - Order passed by Labour Court in Reference rejecting an application under 33 (2)(b) of I.D.Act is set aside.
Result: Petition is allowed.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner-employer is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other writ or Order and quash and set aside the impugned order Annexure-Q dated 30/08/2018 passed by 3rd Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru in Serial Application No.1/2017 in Reference No.51/2015.
c) Consequently, hold that the domestic enquiry ordered against the Respondent workman to be fair and proper and further be pleased to allow the Approval Application in Serial Application No.1/2017 in Reference No.51/2015 preferred by the Petitioner filed u/s 33(2)(b) of The ID Act, 1947; and/or
d) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other Writ or Order and quash and set aside the impugned Order Annexure-X dated 06/11/2019 passed by 3rd Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru in Serial Application No.1/2017 in Reference No.51/2015; and
e) Be pleased to Order grant of approval of Serial Application No.1/2017 on the basis of the evidence recorded on merits, in the interest of justice & equity and uphold the order of Dismissal dated 26/04/2017 passed by the Petitioner against the Respondent to be just, proper and legal, in the interest of justice and equity.
f) Pass such other Order/s as deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner is a Trust managing several professional educational institutions. One such institution is the Dental College known as D.A.Pandu Memorial R.V.Dental College, which was established in the year 1992 having about 52 Teaching Staff and 62 Non-Teaching Staff, 285 Undergraduate students and 87 Post Graduate students at the relevant point of time. The Dental College also provided hostel facilities to the students in campus. The same having 47 rooms with a capacity of 105 for girl students and 19 rooms with a capacity of 42 for boy students.
3. The respondent-workman joined the services of the employer with effect from 01.03.2004 as a Group-D attender. A written joint complaint was received on 03.09.2015 from the girl students residing in the hostel against the workman. The employer issued a charge sheet cum show cause notice on 16.02.2016, towards which a reply was submitted by the workman on 24.02.2016. The employer, not satisfied with the reply, ordered a domestic enquiry and a third-party advocate was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. The enquiry was commenced on 15.03.2016 and concluded on 15.12.2016, spread over 18 sittings. After considering the complaint, defence statement and evidence on record, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report and findings on 20.02.2017, holding the charges against the workman having been proved in terms of the charge sheet dated 16.02.2016.
4. The Disciplinary Authority issued a second show cause notice on 31.03.2017 which was replied to by the workman on 11.04.2017. The employer, not satisfied with the said reply, dismissed the workman by order dated 26.04.2017. An application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘I.D.Act’) was also filed. Since there was an earlier dispute referred to the Industrial Tribunal, the said application came to be numbered as application No.1/2017 in Reference No.51/2015 as regards which the workman filed his objections.
5. The Labour Court tried the preliminary issue as regards the fairness of the domestic enquiry and, vide its order dated 30.08.2018 came to a conclusion that the enquiry was not fair and proper and dismissed the application of the employer filed under Section 33 (2) (b) of I.D.Act.
6. The employer preferred an application to the Labour Court on 11.09.2018 for recalling the order dated 30.08.2018 and for the grant of an opportunity to lead fresh and additional evidence on merits. The said application came to be dismissed by order dated 06.11.2019 b
Bengal Bhatdee Coal Co. v. Ram Prabesh Singh (1963) 1 LLJ 291
Bharat Iron Works Vs. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel
Board of Directors, HPTC Vs. K.C.Rahi
Cholan Roadways Ltd. v. G. Thirugnanasambandam
John D’souza Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
Lalla Ram v. DCM Chemical Works Ltd.
Lord Krishna Textile Mills v. Its Workmen
Mysore Steel Works (P) Ltd. v. Jitendra Chandra Kar
Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Workmen
Section 17 B of I.D.Act reads as payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher courts.
Rejection of an approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 deems that the order of discharge or dismissal had never been passed, entitling the employee to reinst....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the setting aside of the approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 resulted in the automatic reinstatement of the w....
The court upheld the dismissal of the employee for attempted theft, confirming the fairness of the domestic inquiry and the appropriateness of the punishment despite claims of procedural irregulariti....
Labour Courts must refrain from re-evaluating evidence after confirming the fairness of a disciplinary inquiry; interference is only permissible when findings are perverse or lack evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.