C C DINESH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a workman under the 2nd respondent in Federal Bank Ltd. While working as Clerk at Ernakulam Girinagar Branch, he was served with two charge sheets. Enquiry was conducted and he was found guilty. Since the Industrial Dispute I. D. No 8/96 concerning the workman is pending, an application under Section 33 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act was filed for permission for dismissal. After an enquiry the above application was allowed subject to petitioner's right in challenging the dismissal order. Since the dismissal order had already been effected, the present O. P. has actually become infructous. His remedy lies in raising an industrial dispute. Further finding in the order in granting the permission will not be res judicata. Under Section 11 A, the petitioner will get enough opportunity to prove his contentions against the procedure and validity of the findings in the enquiry as well as the proportionality of the punishment. The jurisdiction under Section 33 (1) which is limited to find out whether prima facie case was made out or not. The validity of the order of discharge would still be liable to be tested in a reference under Section 10, as held by the Supreme Court in Punjab Beverages (P) Ltd. v. Suresh Chand (1978-II-LLJ-1) and Punjab National v. Bank Employees' Federation (1959-II -LLJ-666 ). Once the dispute is referred, Labour court will get jurisdiction under Section 11-A to look, whether enquiry was properly conducted, whether findings of the Enquiry Officer is correct and whether punishment imposed is proper. Labour Court can order reinstatement or without back-wages or compensation as the case may be if the order of punishment is not justifiable. Since the petitioner had already been dismissed, petitioner's remedy lies only in raising industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the original petition is dismissed.