ANANDA KATHIRONE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Appeals arise out of the common order of the learned single Judge Ananda Kathirone v. P.O. 2007-II-LLJ-295 (Mad) dated January 10, 2007 passed in W.P. No. 8616/2004 (in W.A. No. 689/2007) and W.P. No. 17550/2004 (in W.A. No. 690/2007).

(2.) The appellant is a workman under the second respondent-Management and the issue relates to his non-employment at the instance of the second respondent-Management.

(3.) The brief facts which are required to be stated are that the appellant-workman was employed as Inspector Grade-II in the second respondent-Management, that he was stated to have put in 35 years of unblemished service, that he was issued with a charge memo dated May 20, 1995 alleging that he instigated the other workmen of the second respondent- Management not to carry out the lawful orders of the second respondent-Management to work on April 1, 1995, April 3, 1995, April 4, 1995, April 9, 1995, April 16, 1995 and April 23, 1995 by issuing hand-bills (pamphlets) and such instigation of the appellant-workman amounted to disobedience of the orders of the second respondent-Management and he also instigated the other workmen to strike work on those days, and the said conduct amounted to misconduct falling under Clause 23(a), (c) and (j) of the Certified Standing Orders of the second respondent-Management. An enquiry was ordered to be held and ultimately, an order of dismissal came to be passed against the appellant-workman on February 2, 1996. In the said order of dismissal, it was specifically mentioned that in accordance with the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act'), having regard to the pendency of conciliation proceedings before the Joint Commissioner of Labour (for short, JCL), the appellant-workman was offered one month's salary in lieu of notice and the "approval application" under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act was also simultaneously filed before the JCL. The said approval application preferred by the second respondent-Management was rejected by the JCL by order dated November 25, 1996 holding that prior permission under Section 33(1)(b) of the I.D. Act ought to have been obtained and that the approval application under Section 33(2)(b) was not maintainable. Challenging the same, the second respondent-Management preferred W.P. No. 19257/1996 before this Court and when the same was pending, the second respondent-Management preferred an application seeking permission of this Court to withdraw the very approval application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act. Considering the said application of the second respondent-Management and the Writ Petition itself, an order came to be passed in that Writ Petition on March 17, 1997 permitting the second respondent-Management to withdraw the very approval application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act, while leaving the legal infirmity raised in the said application as regard the order of dismissal, to be worked out in an appropriate industrial dispute to be raised under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act (as amended by State Act). The appellant- workman challenged the said order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 19257/1996 by filing Writ Appeal in W.A. No. 474/1997. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Writ Appeal by judgment dated December 17, 1997, directing the State Government to "refer" the issue of non-employment of the appellant-workman for adjudication before the Principal Labour Court, Chennai. The Division Bench also fixed the time limit of six months from the date of reference for the disposal of the dispute. That is how the present dispute in I.D. No. 62/1998 came up for adjudication before the first respondent-Labour Court.