MADASAMY A Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER COURT TIRUNELVELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question of law emerges in this writ petition. The petitioner is a worker. He was working as a Driver. He joined the duties as Driver in 1983. There was some misconduct on his part and, therefore, after holding a departmental enquiry, he was terminated from service on February 10, 1986. The petitioner, thereafter, utmost tried to initiate the proceedings before the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act. But his first proceedings he had to withdraw because rightly or wrongly he had not joined the proper employer i. e., the owner of the bus. He, therefore, withdrew his proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act and again started the exercise of the amicable settlement by way of conciliation proceedings before the Labour Officer. The Labour Officer reported the failure of conciliation by his report dated 6/02/1992. After that, he approached the Labour Court with a claim statement dated 13/03/1992. Before the Labour Court, however, another objection came to be taken by the respondent.

(2.) According to the respondent, the petitioner had approached the Labour Court only under Section 2-A(2) of the Act, which gives a right to the workman to approach the Labour Court directly without any reference under Section 10 of the Act on failure of conciliation proceedings. The employer pointed out that the petitioner was terminated in the year 1986 on the day when Section

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner pointed out that the approach of the Labour Court in dismissing the claim petition was entirely erroneous. She argues that in this case the conciliation proceedings were initiated on the date when the amendment was already effected. It is an admitted position that the said conciliation proceedings were initiated somewhere in the year 1991 against the present employer.