NAGESWARA B S Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is disposed of at the stage of preliminary hearing after notice to respondents and after hearing the Counsel for parties.

(2.) The petitioners were former employees of 2nd respondent-Management of M/s. New Government Electric Factory Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company). The petitioners have alleged that they joined the service of the said Company between 1963 and 1979 and worked for different periods. They were at the relevant time working in the Fire Service and Security Department of the Company. The petitioners have alleged that they had been issued with charge sheets on 7-2-1985 alleging that they were directed to verify some cases of tubectomy operations by visiting jalajakshi Nursing Home, Malleswaram. Bangalore, and to report whether the wives of the employees oi the Company named therein had undergone tubectomy operations in that Nursing Home and that they gave reports to the effect that the wives of the employees of the Company had undergone tubectomy operations and on the basis of the said reports certain amounts were paid to the employees and later it was discovered that Jalajakshi Nursing Home was only a clinic and there were neither facilities for conducting operations, nor ward facilities. The gravamen of the charge was that they had given a false report enabling unjust enrichment by other workmen. A domestic enquiry followed and thereafter they were dismissed from service. They raised an industrial dispute. The matter was referred for conciliation proceedings which did not materialise. In the result, they sought reference for adjudication before the Labour Court or the Tribunal as the case may be. Instead the Government by Annexure-D dated 22-11-1986 has informed them that their casa does not deserve to be referred for adjudication as they have themselves tendered resignations to their jobs and obtained termination monetary benefits. Aggrieved by the same, this Court is moved unc'er Art. 226 of the Constitution to have that order at Annexurs-D quashed as being in excess of the jurisdiction vested in the Government under Sec. 10 (1) of the lndustrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(3.) Mr. K. C. Ariga for Shri S. G. Sundarswamy, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, resisted the prayer on the sole ground that it was in fact recorded by the Conciliation Officer that the petitioners had tendered their resignations and therefore the Government was justified in rejecting the reference prayed for.