LAWS(KER)-1982-4-6

MADHAVAN KUTTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On April 15, 1982
MADHAVAN KUTTY Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A clerk who has been dismissed from service of the third respondent herein seeks to quash on order Ext. P3 passed by assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), ernakulam, the second respondent herein.

(2.) THE petitioner joined service in the year 1961 and while working as cashier, he is alleged to have misappropriated money belonging to the bank and consequently he was dismissed from service after conducting a domestic enquiry. It is alleged that he made several representations to the bank against his dismissal and finally as he did not get any reply from the bank he filed an application before the Government of Kerala under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. As no order was passed on his application, the petitioner moved this Court in O. P. No. 898 80 and in pursuance of a direction of this Court the Government of Kerala disposed of the application of the petitioner stating that he has to move the appropriate authority under the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application Ext. P2 before the Assistant Labour commissioner, Ernakulam, raising a dispute regarding his dismissal from the service of the third respondent. The Assistant Labour commissioner after hearing the petitioner and the representative of the employer passed Ext. P3 order stating that there is no scope for any formal proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act over this matter that took place as early as 1972.

(3.) ATTACKING this order, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that after having initiated proceedings under the Industrial disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act, the Assistant Labour Commissioner has no. jurisdiction to pass an order in the nature of Ext. P3; that under the statutory provisions of the Act he is bound to make a report under S. 12 (4) of the Act; that this a clear case where he has refused to exercise the statutory jurisdiction vested in him and that, therefore, this order should be set aside and he should be directed to proceed in accordance with the provisions in S. 12 of the Act.