SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED Vs. ANDELINGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we find that on the peculiar facts of this case Respondent 1 seems to have been tossed from pillar to post. Respondent 1 was working the relevant time in 1986 as 'badli' filler mazdoor) with the appellant Company, which adimittedly is a Central Government company, though administered by the State authorities. Respondent 1 was charge-sheeted on 10/11/1986 for alleged misconduct and after domestic inquiry was dismissed from service on 13/5/1987. His appeal to the General Manager failed. Thereafter he directly approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in writ petition. He was permitted to withdraw the writ petition presumably because he could not move the High Court directly but had remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"). Then he went to the State Labour Court at Hyderabad under Section 2-A sub-section (2) of the State amendment to the Act. The State Labour Court by an order dated 12/11/1992 dismissed the industrial dispute on the ground that it had no jurisdiction as the appropriate Government in this case was the Central Government. Respondent 1, once again went to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. A learned single Judge of the High Court by order dated 16/12/1996 remanded the proceedings for a fresh decision to the Labour Court taking the view that res judicata had no application to the present case. It was obviously a remand to the State Labour Court. The learned single Judge also observed that the State Labour Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. The appellant unsuccessfully carried the matter in appeal and thereafter on obtaining leave to appeal before us.

(2.) The chequered history of this litigation between the parties up till now shows that even though more than 12 years have elapsed since the dismissal of Respondent 1 from the service of the appellant Company, no forum has been found to decide his dispute on its merits.

(3.) We, therefore suggested to the learned counsel for the appellant that if the order appeal is modified and the dispute is directed to be resolved by the Central Labour Court functioning in Hyderabad under the Act, any objection would survive for the appellant. He fairly stated that he would like to have the dispute decided by the Central Labour Court on merits, looking to the chequered history of this litigation.