IMPORTANT POINT
The Labour Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon complaints under Section 33-A and examine the merits of the order of dismissal, and the alleged contravention of Section 33 does not automatically entitle reinstatement.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioners are respectively the Chairman and Secretary of the Quilon Medical Trust which runs the Travancore Medical College (hereinafter referred to as 'the Management'). The 2nd respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the worker') was working as Laboratory Assistant in the Medical College Hospital from 02.11.2009. According to the Management, the worker was issued with Exts.P1 and P2 charge memos dated 04.07.2016 and 05.07.2016 alleging serious misconducts. The worker refused to receive the charge sheets and unauthorisedly absented herself from work from 08.07.2016. The charge memos were, therefore, sent to her residential address by registered post. The worker submitted Ext.P3, a reply denying the charges, stating that she was instructed not to attend work, that she has been denied work, and that she is willing to return to work at any time. She also stated that the Trade Union, of which she is a member, raised the dispute regarding denial of her employment before the Management by registered letter dated 08.07.2016 which the Management received on 11.07.2016. The Trade Union also raised the dispute of denial of her employment before the District Labour Officer by complaint dated 08.07.2016, and the District Labour Officer issued a notice dated 12.07.2016 convening a conciliation conference.

2. The worker was suspended from service pending enquiry with effect from 03.08.2016. She was issued with Ext.P4 charge memo dated 12.08.2016 alleging unauthorised absence and refusal to accept Exts.P1 and P2 charge sheets.

3. Since the explanation submitted by the worker was not satisfactory, the Management appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into the charges. The enquiry officer initiated a joint enquiry into Exts.P1 and P2 charges and a separate enquiry regarding Ext.P4 charge sheet. The worker was set ex parte, and the enquiry officer found her guilty of the charges. The Management issued Ext. P5 order dated 26.04.2017, imposing the punishment of removal of the worker from service.

4. The Government had, in the meantime, issued G.O.(Rt) No.79/2017/LBR dated 20.01.2017 referring the dispute regarding denial of employment of the worker for adjudication under Section 10(1) C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'ID Act', for short). The issue referred for adjudication is:-

“Whether the denial of employment to Mrs. Bindu Suresh Babu, Lab Assistant by the Management of Quilon Medical Trust, Travancore Medical College Hospital, Medicity, N.H.By Pass, Umayanalloor-P.O., Kollam is justifiable or not? If not what relief the worker is entitled to?”.

5. The dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Kollam as ID No.9/2017. Pursuant to the reference, the Trade Union filed Ext.P6 claim petition. The Management filed Ext.P7 written statement stating that the worker was dismissed from service after domestic enquiry and there is no denial of employment as alleged in the claim petition and praying to pass orders holding that there is no denial of employment to the worker and that she was dismissed from service on proved misconduct and to uphold the domestic enquiry by Management as fair and proper.

6. The worker filed I.A. No. 66/2018 (Ext.P8) in ID No. 9/2017 on 04.06.2018 under Section 33-A of the ID Act contending that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court, she was removed from service by the Management without obtaining permission of the Court under Section 33 (1) (b) of the ID Act and praying to set aside Ext.P5 order of removal from service.

7. The Management filed Ext.P9 reply to Ext.P8 stating that the removal of the worker was based on the findings on Exts.P1 and P2 charge memos, on which no conciliation proceedings were pending.

8. As requested by both sides, Ext.P8 interlocutory application filed under Section 33-A was converted to ID No.96/2019. However, the request for joint trial by the Trade Union was rejected. The Labour Court observed that before tak