Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.27 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
The Management, Udipi Hindu Restaurant vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 10 March, 1969
1. The petitioner herein was an employee of the first respondent and he was placed under suspension pending enquiry into certain charges with effect from 1st December, 1968. Subsequently, by an order, dated 7th November, 1969, the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from the date of suspension, namely, 1st December, 1968. The petitioner thereafter filed Claim Petition No. 5 of 1970 on the file of the Labour Court, Madurai under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming a sum of Rs. 2,006 said to be wages due to him for the period of suspension from 1st December, 1968 to 10th November, 1969. Before the Labour Court, the first respondent, apart from contending that the order of suspension was valid on merits, also contended that the Labour Court at Madurai had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act since the suspension of the petitioner could have been the subject-matter of an industrial Dispute referred under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act as laid down by this Court in The Management, Udipi Hindu Restaurant, Madurai v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai and Anr. (1970) 83 L.W. 367 The Labour Court accepted this contention of the first respondent and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner herein. The Labour Court also stated that the first respondent has the power to suspend the petitioner. It is to quash this order of the Labour Court the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed.
1