JACOB CHINNANNAN Vs. SUDARSHAN ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Labour Court rejecting the reference made for adjudication on the ground that the petitioner had already initiated proceedings under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.

(2.) THE petitioner was employed as a Turner with respondent No. 1 on 1-3-1982. On 2-10-1986, after holding an enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service on account of certain acts of misconduct. On 10-10-1986, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Labour Commissioner informing him of his dismissal. On 19-12-1986, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Labour Court under Item 1 (a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act ). While this complaint was pending, the petitioner sent a demand on 24-4-1987 to respondent No. 1 and simultaneously filed a justification statement. The dispute was admitted in conciliation and the parties appeared before the Conciliation Officer. The petitioner informed the Conciliation Officer in 1987 that he no longer wished to proceed with the conciliation and the proceedings should be dropped. However, the complaint before the Labour Court proceeded and on 4-12-1987, the complaint was dismissed for default. A written statement had already been filed by the respondent before the Labour Court.

(3.) A reference was made for adjudication before the Labour Court on 28-1-1988 and the petitioner filed a statement of claim. Written statement was filed by the respondent wherein it was contended that the workman had already initiated proceedings under the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act and, therefore, the reference was not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 59 of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act.