Telangana High Court
Apsrtc Rep., By Its Regional Manager, ... vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Courtii, ... on 18 February, 2022
Author: Satish Chandra Sharma
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL No.63 of 2007
JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma) The appellants before this Court, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, has filed this writ appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 03.11.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23232 of 2005.
The facts of the case reveal that the respondent No.2, employee in question, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and an order of removal was passed on 31.01.1992. The respondent No.2, being aggrieved by the order of removal, preferred an appeal before the employer and by an order dated 26.03.1996, the punishment awarded by the employer was reduced to that of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. The respondent No.2 has preferred I.D.No.183 of 2001 under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was dismissed by the Labour Court by an award dated 15.11.2003. The respondent No.2 has challenged the award of the Labour Court by filing the writ petition i.e.,W.P.No.23232 of 2005. The learned Single Judge, by relying upon some other order passed in W.P.No.6764 of 2005, dated 27.07.2005, has set aside the award and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for fresh consideration by an order dated 03.11.2005. 2
The order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6764 of 2005, dated 27.07.2005, reads as under:-
"This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner-workman aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad in I.D.No.118 of 2002, dated 11.6.2004.
The petitioner-workman was appointed as a driver in the respondent-Corporation in the year 1988 after due process of selection. However, on certain charges, an order of removal was passed by the second respondent on 28.6.2001. The said order of second respondent was subject-matter of an appeal before the first respondent, who granted partial relief by ordering reinstatement of the petitioner as a fresh driver. Still not satisfied with the said relief, the petitioner-workman invoked the jurisdiction under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act') by approaching the Labour Court. The Labour Court instead of considering and passing the order on merits, went in tangent holding that as the petitioner- workman was given partial relief by the appellate authority and if he is allowed to raise an industrial dispute under Section 2-A of the Act, as such benefit was not available if similar punishment is imposed by the original authority, therefore, it amounts to discrimination and the petitioner cannot raise the industrial dispute and accordingly dismissed the application as not maintainable. Aggrieved by that, the present writ petition is filed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Labour Court is not competent to go into the aspect of discrimination and violation of any of the constitutional provisions. The limited powers conferred on the Labour Court is only to examine the case of the petitioner- workman, who approached it, whether it comes within the ambit of Section 2-A of the Act and whether such a workman is entitled to any relief under Section 11-A of the Act and not beyond. But, however, the Labour Court instead of examining the said limited scope of the powers, went into the issue of discrimination and held that the application itself is not maintainable. The said action of the Labour Court is illegal and without jurisdiction.3
The learned Standing Counsel, however, sought to sustain the order stating that the petitioner-workman has already been given relief by the first appellate authority by ordering reinstatement as a fresh driver and therefore, there is no justification to have any grievance to raise any industrial dispute.
Heard both sides and considered the material on record.
A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court went in tangent into the constitutional provisions to hold that there is a discrimination if the application of the petitioner is entertained under Section 2-A(2) of the Act. The Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in going into constitutional aspects as it is intended only to examine the case of the petitioner workman in terms of Section 2-A (2) and Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and not beyond and if the petitioner is entitled for any relief in terms of above two provisions, it is open to the Labour Court to exercise its discretion and pass appropriate orders and not otherwise.
Under the above circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, with a direction to rehear the mater afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs."
This Court has carefully gone through the order dated 27.07.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge, in the aforesaid order, even though it was not a case of removal, discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination, has directed the Labour Court to decide the dispute on merits.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Orissa High 4 Court in the case of Joseph Niranjan Kumar Pradhan v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal1 and his contention is that the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments can be looked into by the Labour Court, even if a petition is preferred under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
This Court has carefully gone through the judgment delivered by the Orissa High Court in the case of Joseph Niranjan Kumar Pradhan (supra) and in the said case the issue was whether the dispute in respect of gratuity can also be looked into under Sectin 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or not. The Division Bench of Orissa High Court has arrived at a conclusion that once the termination is being looked into, the consequential effect of payment of gratuity can also be looked into, whereas in the present case, no such contingency is involved.
Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is reproduced as under:-
"2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute.-- (1) Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches, or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.1
(1977) ILLJ 36 Ori 5 (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section l0, any such workman as is specified in sub-section (1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.
(3) The application referred to in sub-
section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-section (1)."
The aforesaid statutory provision of law makes it very clear that in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment and terminal, a workman can approach the Labour Court or Tribunal directly without following the provisions as contained under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The respondent No.2 in the present case has preferred a petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in respect of stoppage of two annual increments and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.
6
The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ______________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 18.02.2022 vs