FEDBY INFORMATION SERVICES PVT LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/M/s.Fedby Information Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, has filed the present writ petition seeking issuance of writ of prohibition to prohibit the 1st respondent/Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, from adjudicating I.D.No.575 of 2010 raised by the 2nd respondent/G.Priya on the ground that the 2nd respondent cannot raise an Industrial Dispute, since she was not discharged, dismissed, retrenched or otherwise terminated from service by the petitioner's company. Secondly, he further contended that when the 2nd respondent has not been dismissed, discharged, retrenched from service, there is no question of any industrial dispute entertainable by the Labour Court under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thirdly, he was further contended that when the 2nd respondent himself in his own claim petition admitted the fact that the termination order dated 23.07.2009 terminating him from service, came to be withdrawn by letter dated 03.02.2010 and thereupon, she was also paid with a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- towards full wages for the period from 23.07.2009 till 31.01.2010, the Labour Court ought to have dismissed the claim petition seeking adjudication under Section 2A of the Act. In other wards, it was contended that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate, when there is no dispute legally available for adjudication, since there is non-employment or denial of employment in the eye of law. On that basis, a prayer was made to prohibit the 1st respondent/Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, from adjudicating I.D.No.575 of 275 raised by the 2nd respondent.

(2.) IN reply, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that the service of the 2nd respondent was terminated by the petitioner's company by order dated 23.07.2009. Before the service of the 2nd respondent was terminated, an enquiry was conducted on 23.06.2009 and the enquiry committee, after enquiring the 2nd respondent, submitted an enquiry report recommending to terminate the service of the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, she has sent a reply stating that she is not accepting the termination, as she is going to challenge the termination order in the Court of law. After legal notice served through her lawyer to furnish a copy of the minutes recorded in the enquiry on 23.06.2009 and 24.06.2009, she initiated conciliation proceedings through Labour Welfare Officer, Kuralaga, Chennai, by filing petition No.655 of 2009 and thereafter, during the course of conciliation proceedings, the 2nd respondent was served with a cheque for Rs.1,25,000/- along with a letter dated 03.02.2010 for withdrawal of termination stating that the termination order is without prejudice to the action to be taken against the 2nd respondent based on the show cause notice dated 30.06.2009 and for other misconducts alleged to have been committed by the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent would also continue to remain in suspension. Since the 2nd respondent was not subsequently reinstated in service and she was placed under suspension, without accepting the termination order, she has filed a claim petition before the Labour Court. Therefore, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that even though the termination order dated 23.07.2009 was subsequently withdrawn by letter dated 03.02.2010, it is up to the 2nd respondent to accept the decision taken by the petitioner's company, therefore, she refused to accept the withdrawal of the termination and on that basis, it was prayed that she is entitled to challenge the same before the Labour Court.

(3.) FURTHER, this is a case where the 2nd respondent to raise industrial dispute under Section 2A of the Act, should have a cause of action, but as on today, there is no cause of action. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent's termination order dated 23.07.2009 was already withdrawn by letter dated 03.02.2010 by the petitioner's company with a liberty to initiate appropriate action against the 2nd respondent by making a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- towards full backwages for the period from 23.07.2009 till 31.01.2010. The fact of 2nd respondent having accepted the said amount and thereafter, getting the subsistence allowance goes to show that the 2nd respondent is still an employee of the petitioner's company. Therefore, the claim petition filed by the 2nd respondent before the Labour Court seeking to raise an industrial dispute, is fully without any jurisdiction. In fact, when the order terminating the 2nd respondent was already withdrawn without prejudice to the right of the petitioner's company to initiate appropriate action against the 2nd respondent, there is no industrial dispute, moreso any cause of action, available either for the 2nd respondent to make a claim petition or for the labour court to adjudicate for the same.