Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. JYOTHIMANI
The Management of Bharathan Publication (P) Ltd.
Versus
The Labour Officer III Kuralagam & Another
Writ Petition No.18954 of 2008 & Connected Miscellaneous Petitions
Decided on: 08-06-2009
Industrial Disputes Act - Dismissal of G.Karunakaran - Section 33(1)(b) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 33(1)(b) - The court discussed the interpretation and application of Section 33(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which prohibits the alteration of workmen's conditions of service or the dismissal of a workman during the pendency of conciliation proceedings without prior permission from the authority. The court emphasized the obligation of the employer to obtain express permission under Section 33(1)(b) and the consequences of contravening this provision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the dismissal of G.Karunakaran, an employee, during the pendency of conciliation proceedings. The employer, a publisher of magazines, dismissed G.Karunakaran without obtaining prior permission from the Conciliation Officer, as required under Section 33(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dismissal of G.Karunakaran during the pendency of conciliation proceedings without obtaining prior permission was in violation of Section 33(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and upheld the decision of the first respondent Labour Officer.
Issues: The key issues included the interpretation and application of Section 33(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the nature of the conciliation proceedings, and the employer's obligation to obtain prior permission for dismissal during the pendency of such proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the employer's failure to obtain express permission for the dismissal of G.Karunakaran during the pendency of conciliation proceedings constituted a contravention of Section 33(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore, the dismissal was invalid.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the decision of the first respondent Labour Officer, finding the dismissal of G.Karunakaran to be in violation of Section 33(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
1. The writ petition is directed against the order passed by the first respondent/Labour Officer in A/572/2007 dated 20.12.2007, under which the first respondent has ordered that the dismissal of one G.Karunakaran, Working President of the second respondent Union is opposed to section 33(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (in short, "the Act") since the conciliation proceedings in respect of the dispute are pending and the dismissal has been ordered without approval from the Conciliation Officer.
2. The writ petitioner is a publisher of various magazines and one G.Karunakaran, working as Assistant Printer, was said to have been involved in the charge of misconduct, in respect of which a charge sheet was issued on 9. 2006 and he was kept under suspension pending enquiry. It is stated that on 19. 2006, the second respondent Union has raised an industrial dispute regarding retrenchment, lock out, etc., including that of suspension of G.Karunakaran and that dispute was numbered as A/514/2006 by the first respondent.
2(a). The first respondent issued notice on 19. 2006 for enquiry which was posted on 29. 2006, 10. 2006 and 110. 2006. On 111. 2006, the petitioner submitted a reply to the effect that the petitioner is not proposing to indulge in retrenchment or lock out and that G.Karunakaran has been suspended pending disciplinary proceedings and therefore, the dispute is not maintainable. While the enquiry was posted on 22. 2007, the second respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.No.38315 of 2006 against the disciplinary action initiated against G.Karunakaran and also filed W.P.No.41190 of 2006 challenging the charge sheet-cum-suspension order dated 9. 2006 and both the writ petitions were dismissed on 4. 2007 on the basis that the second respondent raised a dispute and hence, the alternative remedy was resorted to.
2(b). It is the case of the petitioner that against the said G.Karunakaran, enquiry was conducted and a second show-cause notice dated 06.04.2007 was issued, proposing to dismiss him from service, for which there was no reply and therefore, by order dated 24. 2007, the said G.Karunakaran was dismissed from service. It is the case of the petitioner that even though the first respondent issued various notices, no conciliation proceedings have been initiated as per section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. On the memorandum filed by the second respondent on 6. 2007 questioning the dismissal of the said G.Karunakaran from service without prior approval, particularly when the dispute stood posted by the first respondent for enquiry on various dates, the petitioner replied stating that no conciliation proceedings were pending when G.Karunakaran was dismissed on 24. 2007.
2(c). Thereafter, the first respondent took up an application regarding non-employment of G.Karunakaran and the petitioner participated in the enquiry on 9. 2007. That was also in case No.A/514/2006 and the enquiry was subsequently adjourned to 19. 2007 and there were no further proceedings. It is stated that in the meantime, the second respondent raised two more disputes and the same were numbered as 591/2006 and 810/2006 and according to the petitioner, they were not taken up by the first respondent for conciliation.
2(d). It is the case of the petitioner that in case of non-public utility service like that of the petitioner, notices are issued for enquiry inviting parties to attend to verify the records and when notices are issued for conciliation proceedings within the meaning of section 12 of the Act, the Conciliation Officer is bound to submit his report and the first respondent has not submitted any such conciliation failure report.
2(e). Even though the first respondent in A/572/07 called for the discussion in respect of dismissal of G.Karunakaran during the pendency of dispute in A/514/06, the petitioner was unable to attend by oversight and ultimately, the first respondent passed the impugned order and after the i
AI
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
