Karnataka High Court
Bpl Refrigerators Rep. By Its Director, ... vs Deputy Labour Commissioner And Ors. on 21 February, 2007
Equivalent citations: (2007)IIILLJ739KANT
Author: H.N. Nagamohan Das
Bench: H.N. Nagamohan Das
ORDER H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.
1. In this writ petition the petitioner - BPL Refrigerators have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 24.02.2003 passed by the first respondent - Deputy Labour Commissioner issuing recovery certificate under Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act').
2. Petitioner is an industry engaged in the manufacture of Refrigerators and other electronic products. Respondents 2 to 19(1) are workmen in the petitioner industry. In the month of July 1998 the workers submitted a list of charter of demands. Since the charter of demands were not met, the workers went on strike from 19.11.1998. Finally on 14.04.1999 the strike was called off. But the issues like termination of some workmen, strike, charter of demands etc., were referred for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal at Bangalore and the same came to be registered in I.D.No. 18/1999 and the following issues are framed:
I. Whether the workers of the 5th respondent are justified in demanding the following demands w.e.f. 1st April 1998 (Demand list is enclosed in a separate annexure along with the reference) II. Whether the workers are justified in going on strike from 19.11.1998?
III. Whether the Management is justified in terminating the services of the following employees etc (list enclosed).
3. During the pendency of I.D. No. 18/1999, the petitioner management dismissed 35 workers including respondents 2 to 19(1) during the months of May and June 1999. Thereafter the petitioner management filed application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act before the Labour Court in LD. No. 18/1999 seeking approval of dismissal of workmen and the same came to by dismissed vide order dated 14.10.1999 and 25.10.1999. In the meanwhile the Government referred the dispute relating to dismissal of workmen for adjudication to Labour Court vide order dated 12.10.1999 under Section 10(1)(c) and (d) of the Act When the matter stood at that stage, the respondent workers' Union filed an application for recovery certificate under Section 33-C(1) of the Act The first respondent - Deputy Labour Commissioner after hearing both the parties passed the impugned order on 24.02.2003 issuing recovery certificate. Hence this writ petition.
4. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.
5. Sri Kasturi, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner contends, that until the dispute referred under Section 10 of the Act is decided, the impugned order under Section 33-C(1) of the Act is illegal and without jurisdiction. 1 decline to accept this contention of learned Senior counsel. The Supreme Court in the case of H.D. Sharma v. Northern India Textile Research Association 2000 LLR 581 explained the scope of Section 6-E(2)(b) and Section 4-K of the UP. Industrial Disputes Act These two provisions, Section 6-E(2)(b) and 4-K under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act are similar to Section 33 and Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act The Supreme Court held, that the proceedings for permission to dismiss workmen and the proceedings to adjudicate an industrial dispute are substantially different. Proceedings under both the sections can be continued at the same time. The culmination of proceedings under one section will not result in closure of proceedings in another section as they are meant to achieve different purposes.
6. Secondly it is contended that the Tribunal rejected the petitioner's application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act as not maintainable and on technical grounds. The Tribunal has not examined the order of dismissal as bonafide or victimisation or unfair labour practice or procedure is not followed. Now in the proceedings under Section 10 of the Act the Tribunal will go into the correctness of the order of dismissal and as such the impugned order under Section 33-C(1) of the Act is bad in law. The Supreme Court in the case of Jaipur Zia Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited v. Ram Gopal Sharma 2002 (1) LLN 639 held, that if the approval is not granted under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act, the order of dismissal becomes ineffective from the date it was passed and failure to make application under Section 33(2)(b) would render the order of dismissal inoperative. In the case on hand the industrial dispute between the parties is pending in I.D. No. 18/1999. It is not in dispute that daring the pendency of proceedings in I.D. No. 18/1999 the petitioner dismissed the respondents 2 to 19(1). It is admitted that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act came to be dismissed and the same had become final. Even if I accept the contention of the petitioner that on technical grounds the Tribunal dismissed the application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, men there is no application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act and therefore the order of dismissal of respondents 1 to 19(1) is inoperative. When once the order of dismissal of respondents 1 to 19(1) is inoperative men they are entitled to maintain an application under Section 33-C(1) of the Act
7. The impugned order passed by the first respondent is in accordance with law. The reasoning of the first respondent is supported by admitted facts and evidence on record. I find no justifiable grounds to interfere with the impugned order.
8. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is rejected with no order as to costs.