WOODLANDS HOTEL PRIVATE LIMITED BANGALORE Vs. KRISHNA NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are filed challenging the order passed on I. A. No. III dated 27-12-2004 by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, in serial applications 5 to 10 and 12 to 34 of 2003 in ID. No. 101 of 1999 vide annexures-A21 to A29. Petitioner is also challenging a common order dated 22-3-2004 passed on LA. No. 5 vide Annexure-B.

(2.) PETITIONER is a company registered under the provisions of the companies Act and is engaged in the business of Lodging and Boarding. Thirtieth respondent namely, the workmen of Woodlands, raised an industrial Dispute pertaining to the various charter of demands which have been referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore for adjudication and the same is pending as I. D. No. 101 of 1999. According to the petitioner there exists no dispute in terms of the provisions of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain this reference. Majority of the workman resigned their membership from the HMS Union and joined the Karnataka State hotels and Resorts Staff and Workers' Union on enmas basis as per the communication dated 14-9-2001 (Annexure-D ). After resigning from the hms Union and after joining the KTUC Union, respondents submitted similar charter of demands as in I. D. No. 101 of 1999 and applied before the Tribunal praying for impleading them as necessary party in I. D. No. 101 of 1999. The said prayer was rejected. During the pendency of the dispute, the workmen of the petitioner establishment started intermittal illegal strike and ultimately Hon'ble Minister for Labour intervened and the strike was withdrawn and dispute was settled with that union. Petitioner states that the charge-sheets were issued to thirty workmen and enquires were held in the matter. Ultimately, all the thirty workmen were dismissed from the services of the petitioner. In the light of pendency of the dispute, petitioner filed approval Applications 5 to 10 and 12 to 34 of 2003 seeking approval under Section 33 (2) (b) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(3.) I. A. No. III was filed by the management seeking that the I. As. filed by the respondents for interim relief may be kept in abeyance in terms of the affidavit filed supporting I. A. No. III. It was opposed by workmen. Thereafter, after hearing, the Tribunal has chosen to reject the same in its order dated 21-12-2003. A review petition was filed by petitioner and the same came to be rejected. Petitioner is therefore before me challenging the order dated 27-12-2003 (Annexure-A1 to annexure-A29 and Annexure-B ).