Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Jyoti Mulimani, J.
M.Gopi S/o Krishnappa - Appellant
Vs.
The Management Of M/s Modern Automotive Ltd. - Respondent
Writ Petition No.11403 Of 2021 (L-TER)
Decided On : 23-08-2022
Labour Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10(4-A), Section 33(2)(b) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 10(4-A) and Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and their interpretations. It highlighted the distinction between adjudicatory process and summary action, emphasizing that the proceedings under Section 10, 10(4-A), and 33(2)(b) are independent of each other.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Painter, was suspended and later dismissed by the respondent employer. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order before the Labour Court, which stayed the proceedings pending the approval application filed by the employer before the Industrial Tribunal. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the stay order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proceedings under Section 10, 10(4-A), and 33(2)(b) are independent of each other and that the court cannot stay adjudication proceedings under the guise of the pendency of an approval application. It also held that the principles of res judicata have no part to play in the adjudication of industrial disputes under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Issues: The key issue was whether the Labour Court was justified in staying the proceedings pending the approval application filed by the employer before the Industrial Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 10(4-A) and Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing the independence of the proceedings under these sections and the inapplicability of the principles of res judicata in industrial dispute adjudication.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the order staying the proceedings was quashed. The court directed the Labour Court to adjudicate the dispute on its merits in accordance with the law.
ORDER :
Sri.Vilas Ranganath Datar., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.Prashanth.B.K., learned counsel for respondent have appeared in person.
2. The parties are referred to as per the ranking before the Labour court.
3. The brief facts of the case are stated as under:
The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Painter on and from 01.07.2015. The petitioner is a Governing Council Member of the Industrial and General Workers Union.
The Respondent is an industrial establishment and is carrying on manufacture of automobile parts viz., precision forging, expertise machining and customized assemblies and is the main supplier of these automobile parts to M/s.Honda Motor cycle Company Ltd, based at Narasapura Industrial Area, Kolar, that the Industrial establishment of the Respondent is located in the allocated industrial site in the industrial estate of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board at Malur. That the Respondent employer is employing more than 100 workmen.
It is stated that on 14.06.2017 the petitioner was placed under suspension pending domestic enquiry alleging slow production. That the petitioner states that a charge sheet cum show cause notice was issued to him on 24.06.2017 for certain acts of misconduct and appears to have given an opportunity to submit his explanation.
The Respondent engaged the services of professional lawyer Shri.Pradeep B.V., Advocate from Bengaluru to conduct the inquiry proceedings; he conducted the inquiry from 22.09.2017 and appears to have concluded the domestic inquiry in 17.05.2018. It is said that the domestic enquiry conducted was far from satisfactory and the reasonable opportunity which is required to be given to defend his case was not afforded. Hence, it is stated that it was case of victimization.
The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report on 17.8.2018. The Respondent issued second show cause notice dated 21.08.2018 calling upon the petitioner to respond, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 10.09.2018. However, without considering the same and past record, the Respondent-Employer issued the order of dismissal on 17.11.2018.
It is averred that said action of the Respondent was patently mala fide exercise of power of taking disciplinary action, right from placing him under suspension, issuing charge-sheet, initiating enquiry and passing final order, it’s a case unfair labour, practice, victimization and discrimination per se.
After passing of the final order of dismissal on 17.11.2018, the Employer invoked the jurisdiction of the State Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, seeking approval of the action of dismissal of the petitioner from its service since an industrial dispute is pending in I.D.No.338/2018 before the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore wherein the petitioner is also concerned workman in the said industrial dispute, claiming to have sent Rs.11,092/- (Rupees Eleven thousand ninety two only) wages being one month's wages by cheque and claiming to have complied with the provisions of the Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D.Act. That the petitioner states that the said Application came to be numbered before the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore as Application No.429/2018 which is pending disposal before the said Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore. The petitioner is contesting the same.
It is further averred that pending said Approval Application which may take its own time to be decided, the petitioner being aggrieved by the illegal retrenchment by way of illegal dismissal order passed on 17.11.2018, challenged the dismissal order before the jurisdictional Labour Court being Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar by invoking the provisions of Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which came to be numbered as I.D.No.06/2019.
After service of notice the Respondent appeared and has filed their Counter Statement. The Respondent filed an Application under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act read with S
The main legal point established in the judgment is the independence of the proceedings under Section 10, 10(4-A), and 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the inapplicability of the principl....
The court's decision was based on the finding that the termination was not with an intention to victimize the workman, and the principles of natural justice in the domestic enquiry were not adjudicat....
The court affirmed that dismissal without approval under Section 33(2)(b) is inoperative, and the employee is deemed to continue in service until approval is granted.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
