Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. SRIMATHY, J.
P. Murugesan - Appellant
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli & Another - Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 15993 of 2015
Decided On : 04-04-2022
Labour Court Jurisdiction - Industrial Disputes Act - Section 2(A)(2) - Section 2(k) - Societies Registration Act, 1860 - [JURISDICTION] - [INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES] - [Section 2(A)(2), Section 2(k), Societies Registration Act, 1860] - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act and the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It held that the Labour Court had jurisdiction at Dindigul, where the dispute was originally raised. The court also considered the provisions of Section 2(A)(2) and Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act in relation to the petitioner's claim for reinstatement and backwages. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these legal provisions and their application to the facts of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Technical Officer, filed an interlocutory application seeking full salary as interim relief and challenged the dismissal from service. The respondents contended that the petitioner was not interested in joining the transferred post at Varanasi.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not interested in taking up the job in the transferred post and was not entitled to full salary with notional increase. The court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Labour Court, petitioner's entitlement to full salary with notional increase, petitioner's interest in joining the transferred post at Varanasi.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the petitioner's lack of interest in joining the transferred post and the absence of entitlement to full salary with notional increase. The court also considered the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act and the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed with no costs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Thiruchirapalli in I.A.No.4 of 2015, in I.D.No.100 of 2010, dated 28.07.2015, to quash the same and further to direct the first respondent, Presiding Officer to pass fresh order in the said I.A.No.4 of 2015 in I.D.No.100 of 2010 on merits, based on the material available on the Labour Court record.)
1. This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order passed by the first respondent Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Thiruchirapalli in I.A.No.4 of 2015, in I.D.No.100 of 2010, dated 28.07.2015, and further to direct the first respondent, presiding officer to pass fresh order in the said I.A.No.4 of 2015 in I.D.No.100 of 2010 on merits, based on the material available on the Labour Court record.
2. The petitioner filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.4 of 2015 praying to direct the first respondent to pay full salary with notional increase by 7th date of every calendar month as interim relief, from the date of filing of this petition to the date of commencement of final award of I.D.No.100 of 2010, which is pending for disposal. The petitioner has filed I.D.No.100 of 2010, under Section 2(A)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act and thereby, praying to set aside the domestic enquiry findings and pass an award reinstating the petitioner with full backwages and continuity of service with consequential benefits.
3. The petitioner was engaged as Technical Officer in the National Horticulture Research & Development Foundation (NHRDF), Nasik district. As per the work allotment order, dated 15.06.2009, the petitioner's duty is to procure and sell the seeds, contact the farmers, convince them to purchase the seeds and do clerical works allotted from time to time. The petitioner has raised a conciliation under Section 2k. Pending the conciliation, the Regional Center of the second respondent was shifted from Dindigul to Coimbatore on 13.09.2009. In the meanwhile, the conciliation ended in failure. When the industrial dispute was pending, the petitioner was transferred from Karnool to Varanasi and the relieving order was dated 20.08.2009. The petitioner requested to sanction travel advance and the same was denied. The salary for the month of August 2008 was not paid. Since the petitioner has not joined the new place, the respondents issued charge memo.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents conducted the enquiry without mentioning under which law and procedure it was conducted. However, the respondents conducted the enquiry without replying to the petitioner's contention. The petitioner did not get a chance to file his defence statement, since the requisite rules under which the enquiry was conducted was not served to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner submitted that the enquiry is conducted violating the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondents to pay TA / DA for attending enquiry. The advance of Rs.2,000/- was paid and was not even sufficient to meet the train fare. The petitioner requested the Enquiry Officer through email to supply the statement of written proof filed by the management for preparing written relief on the side of the petitioner. Finally, the petitioner submitted his written explanation. The respondents held that the charges are proved. Thereafter, the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of dismissal from service.
5. The respondents submitted that it is an organization for research development and having branch all over India. The second respondent is a known private organization and it is not receiving income from any business and the respondent is not a Central Government nor an undertaking of Central Government. The respondent organization is Society registered u
The court's decision emphasized the importance of the petitioner's genuine interest in joining the transferred post and the application of jurisdictional provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act ....
The court emphasized the power of the tribunal to regulate its own procedure and the principle that technical and procedural lapses should not hinder substantial justice.
Section 17 B of I.D.Act reads as payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher courts.
The finality of the Labour Court's findings and the limited scope of re-appreciating evidence in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that claims filed under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, must be made within the statutory limitation period of three years from th....
The limitations of the Writ Court in determining the factual matrix and the scope of power to issue a writ of certiorari.
The finding of fact by the Industrial adjudicator can only be interfered with if patently illegal.
Section 11A reads as powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.
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
