K LOGANATHAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTIFICATION No. SWL 289 LLD 90 (1), presumably issued under Section 36-B of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the 'act'), exempting the respondent-2 from the purview of the Act, was challenged by the appellant and the Union of the employees by way of writ petition, alleging the same to be without jurisdiction and contrary to law. The writ petition was dismissed after the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-establishment stated that the management had no objection in petitioner's seeking adjudicating their rights before an appropriate forum under the Act, if and when the dispute is raised with respect to the termination of the service of the worker. The order of the learned Single Judge is stated to be against law because it has allegedly failed to consider the scope of Section 36-B of the Act. It is contended that after the respondent-establishment had not pressed the impugned notification it was obligatory for the learned Single Judge to have allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned notification. It is submitted that so long as the notification exists, no provisions of Act could be invoked by the aggrieved workmen, as by consent no jurisdiction can be conferred upon the Board, Court or Tribunal constituted under the Act. Even according to the concession made on behalf of the respondent-Establishment, the workmen at the most can raise disputes with respect to their termination but cannot approach the forums under the Act for their monetary or other entitlements.

(2.) SECTION 36-B of the Act provides:

(3.) THE aforesaid section appears to have been enacted in view of the pronouncements made by the Constitutional Courts that the sovereign functions of the State do not fall within the ambit of definition of 'industry' and as large number of undertakings or industrial establishments are carried on by the State, they have to be protected despite the fact that they are deemed to be 'industry' under the Act. In order to obviate the confusion of duplication of procedure for settling the dispute, the aforesaid section was incorporated conferring powers upon appropriate government to exempt industrial establishments or undertakings established and carried on by a department of the government. The respondent-Institute is admittedly not an establishment or undertaking carried on by the Government or any of its department. The power of exemption vesting in the government authorises to grant exemption only to the establishments, undertakings, class of establishments or undertakings carried on by any department'of that Government and it has ho power to exempt any undertaking or establishment carried on by private enterprise or any other Government.