Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Reliance is placed on Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and Anr. Vs. S.C. Sharma (2005) 2 SCC 363; North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. M. Nagangouda AIR 2007 SC 973; Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. V. Venkatesan AIR 2010 SC 206 and Niranjan Cinema Vs. Prakash Chandra Dubey & Anr. (2007) 14 SCC 349. It is prayed that the impugned award dated 12th April, 2007 and impugned order dated 27th September, 2005 of the Assistant Labour Commissioner be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand contends that the workman was protected on year-to-year basis and the same came into force on the date, the letter is sent by the Union in terms of Rules 61 of the ID Rules. Thus, when the Respondent No.2 was dismissed on 31st August, 2005 he was a protected workman irrespective of the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner being passed on 27th September, 2005 which always has a retrospective effect. Reliance in this regard is placed on Air India Ltd. Vs. Indian Pilots Guild & Anr. 2005 Lab I.C. 1286. Respondent No.2 was denied his right of promotion as a result of which he raised an industrial dispute being ID No. 9/2003 wherein award was passed in favour of Respondent No.2 and against the Petitioner/ management holding that the Respondent No.2 was entitled to promotion. Thereafter, the Respondent workman was elected as an office bearer of the Batra Hospital Employees Union holding the post of either Vice-President or General Secretary. Since the Respondent No.2 had been elected as an office bearer, he was declared a protected workman under Rule 61 of the ID Central Rules for various years which fact was accepted by the management. The declaration of Respondent No.2 as a protected workman was challenged by the Petitioner/ management by filing a W.P.(C) No. 7748/2002 which petition was dismissed by this Hon‟ble Court on 19th May, 2004, however, the appeal filed by the Petitioner/ management is still pending being LPA No. 743/2004. Vide order dated 27th September, 2005 the Respondent No.2 was again declared a protected workman which order was to relate back to 1st April, 2005. To victimize Respondent No.2 and to remove him from service, an alleged charge-sheet was filed leveling false and frivolous allegations related to one Shri Pankaj Sharma the Law Officer (HR). In view of the fact that the Respondent No.2 was a protected workman, he filed a petition under Section 33(A) of the ID Act wherein the basic contention of the Petitioner was that Respondent No.2 was not a protected workman. Reliance is placed on Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Shri Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors. AIR 2002 SC 643; Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre of Ch. Aishi Ram Batra Vs. Batra Hospital Employees Union & Ors. 2004 (75) DRJ 328; and Tops Security Ltd. Vs. Subhash Chander Jha LPA 1044/2011 decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 16th July, 2012. It is further contended that since there is no perversity in the impugned award and the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, this Court in view of the law laid down in Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (2010) 1 SCR 591 should not interfere in the same in the exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

5. It may be noted that the Assistant Labour Commissioner vide its order dated 27th September, 2005 declared the Respondent No.2 as a protected workman under Section 33(4) of the ID Act and Rule 61 of the Central Rules. The thrust of the learned counsel for the Petitioner in relation to the order dated 27th September, 2005 is that it was enforceable with immediate effect. Since the said order was not applicable retrospectively thus as on the date when the dismissal order was passed there was no declaration in favour of the Respondent No.2 that he was a protected workman. Rule 61 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 provides as under: