I T C LTD Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The points that arise for consideration in these appeals are (1) When the proceedings under Section 33(2) (b) of the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947, 1947, are pending before the Tribunal is the Government competent to refer under Section 10(1) of the Act the same matter for adjudication to an authority specified therein. (2) Even if the Government has the competence to make a reference under Section 10(1) of the Act is the decision to refer vitiated because of non-consideration of the pendency of the proceedings under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act, before the Tribunal.

(2.) The facts giving rise in these appeals are these : The appellant Company served charge sheets for certain misconduct alleged against each of the workmen, held an enquiry and as a result of the enquiry pased orders dismissing about 59 of its workmen. Because some disputes 1 etween the Company and its workmen were pending before the Labour Court the Company applied for approval under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for dismissing the said workmen. The workmen opposed the application. When these proceedings under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act were pending the workmen raised disputes and on the Conciliation Officer reporting that there was no settlement of the said disputes the Government by its Order No. SWL 752 LLD 81 dated 5th November, 1981 referred the dispute concerning the dismissal of 42 workmen and by another Order No. SWL 261 LLD 82 dated 26lh July, 1982 referred the dispute concerning the dismissal of the other 11 workmen for adjudication under Section 10(1) of the Act, to the Labour Court, Bangalore. The Company challenged the order rated 5th November, 1981 marked Annexure-E in Writ Petition No. 31400 of 1981 and the Order dated 26th July, 1982 marked Annexure-E in Writ Petition No. 37689 of 1982 and obtained stay of further proceedings pursuant to the orders of reference before the Labour Court. RAMA JOIS, J : heard both these writ petitions and by a common order made on 22nd Jure, 1984 dismissed these writ petitions This decision is reported in I.L.R. 1985 (1) Karnataka 184.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Company canvassed the following points for our consideration He argued that (i) During the pendency of the proceedings under Section 33(2) (b) of the Act seeking approval of the Tribunal for dismissing the workmen, there is in law no order of dismissal to give rise for a dispute which can be referred for adjudication under Section 10 of the Act; (ii) The scope of the proceedings both under Section 33 and on a reference under Section 10 of the Act, are the same, the proceedings under Section 33 of the Act being proceedings to meet a particular or a special situation, the general power under Section 10 of the Act cannot be exercised by the Government during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 33 of the Act; and (iii) The pendency of the proceedings under Section 33 of the Act is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration in deciding to refer or decline to refer a dispute under Section 10(1) of the Act and admittedly this not having been taken into consideration by the Government the decision to refer the dispute is vitiated.