MYSORE LAMP WORKS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these three Writ Petitions presented against the Orders of the State Government refusing to refer the dispute relating to dismissal from service of each of the petitioners by the concerned management, for industrial adjudication, the following important question of law arises forconsideration : Whether the decision of the Government not to refer a dispute between a workman of an industry and its management jo respect of imposition of penalty of dismissal or removal from service of the workman, on the ground that approval had been accorded to the order of dismissal by an order made by the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, is valid ?

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : -

(3.) AS against the plea of the Petitioners, the stand taken on behalf of the State Government is as follows : The jurisdiction of the Tribunal or Labour Court under Section 33 of the Act and the nature of inquiry which they are required to hold in a proceeding arising under that Section, on an application by an employer seeking prior permission or subsequent approval to the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service against his workman and their jurisdiction in deciding a reference under Section 10 of the Act in which the dispute is as to the justification for the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service is, having regard to the several pronouncements of the Supreme Court, are similar, except the additional powers conferred under Section 11A of the Act on the Labour Court or the Tribunal in deciding a dispute concerning the imposition of the penalty of dismissal or removal from service. Therefore, if in a proceeding under proviso to Section 33 of the Act, the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be holds that the domestic inquiry held by the management is invalid and the matter is inquired into by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal itself and approval is accorded, the said circumstance constitutes a very valid and relevant ground for the State Government to decide as to whether the dispute should be referred for adjudication or not. Similarly, in cases where the validity of the domestic inquiry, is not at all contested by the workman in a proceeding under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act or upheld after contest and thereafter approval is accorded to the dismissal from service of the workman, the order so made constitutes relevant ground to decide as to whether the dispute should be referred for adjudication or not. In these three Petitions, the validity of the domestic inquiry had been upheld and it is only thereafter the Tribunal accorded its approval to the order of dismissal against each of the work -men. In the reports sent to the Government by the Labour Commissioner and by the Conciliation Officer, they also opined that in view of the approval of the order of dismissal by the Tribunal, these were not fit cases for reference for industrial adjudication. On consideration of these records, the State Government decided that there was justification to refer the dispute for industrial adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned endorsements were issued. The decision of the State Government is in accordance with law and there is no ground for interference.