THE MANAGEMENT MADRAS GYMKHANA CLUB, REP. BY THE HONORARY SECRETARY, THE ISLAND GROUNDS, NO.1, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI Vs. MR. RAVI AROCKIASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Management of the Madras Gymkhana Club, and the challenge in this Writ Petition is to an order passed by II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.71 of 2014, in I.D.No.67 of 2013, dated 30.04.2015.

(2.) The first respondent/workman had raised a dispute before the Labour Court, challenging his non employment on the ground that the Management has not obtained approval under Sec. 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter, referred to as 'I.D. Act'), prior to deny employment to him. The Management has filed a preliminary counter statement in connection to the said Dispute during the year 2013, after which, the workman has filed an Interlocutory Application, in I.A.No.71 of 2014. In the said Application, the workman prayed that the issue, viz., whether the Management was proper and justified in terminating the service of the workman, without obtaining approval under Sec. 33 (2) (b) of I.D. Act, has to be decided as a preliminary issue. The Management resisted the said Interlocutory Application by filing their counter affidavit, contending that the workman was not terminated during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings before the Conciliation Officer, and hence, the question of filing of Approval Petition does not arise. In support thereof, reliance was placed on the case reported in (2002) 1 L.L.N 639 in (Jaipur Zilla Sahakari Boomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Ramgopal Sharma and others) . Further, an averment was made that, when the Management terminated the workman, there was no conciliation proceedings pending before any forum, and there was no violation of Sec. 33 (2) (b) of I.D. Act. On these pleadings, the Labour Court considered the matter and allowed the Interlocutory Application, and framed three issues to be taken up as preliminary issues.

(3.) Challenging the order passed by the Labour Court in the aforesaid Interlocutory Application, the present Writ Petition is filed by the Management, by stating that, in labour matters, there cannot be any preliminary issue, and in this regard, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in (Muthiah Vs. Management of Seethalakshmi Mills and another) reported in (2004) II Labour Law Journal 229 and submitted that, notwithstanding there being a technical violation, assuming there is one in the present case, it will still be open to the Labour Court to consider the acts of misconduct indulged by the employee to see whether the act of misconduct has been proved or not, and in case, it has been proved, notwithstanding that there is supposedly a violation of Sec. 33 (2) (b) of I.D. Act, yet, it could grant relief that need not necessarily be the relief of reinstatement.