K. LOGANATHAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER

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 learned Counsel appearing for the respondent -establishment has vainly attempted to persuade us to hold that the words "carried on by a department of that Government", refers to the undertakings and not to other industrial establishments mentioned in the preceding part of the section. We do not find any force in this submission of the learned Counsel and are of the opinion that the words herein above referred to have to be read egusdem generis to all industrial establishments or undertakings carried on by a department of the Government. No distinction appears to have been made between the industrial establishments or undertakings. Any other interpretation would defeat the purpose for which the section was enacted. The words used in the section are clear and unambiguous and cannot be interpreted in any other manner. We are therefore satisfied that the impugned notification issued by the respondent -State exempting the respondent -establishment from the purview of the Act was contrary to the provisions of Section 36 -B and thus without jurisdiction. Upon a limited concession made on behalf of respondent -establishment, the learned Single Judge was not justified to dismiss the writ petition. The appeal is accordingly allowed by setting aside order of learned Single Judge.