ANJILAMMA Vs. LABOUR COURT III HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is that whether the legal heirs of a deceased workman whose services were terminated by his employer as a measure of punishment can validly institute an industrial dispute before the Labour Court under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short 'the Act' questioning the validity of the action of the employer in terminating the services of such workman and claim reliefs as provided under the Act. This question arises for consideration in the backdrop of the following facts;

(2.) The first petitioner is the widow and the petitioners 2 to 7 are the children of one late Shri Ramdas who was working as a watchman in the establishment of the second respondent Divisional Engineer (Electrical Operations), Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, Mahabubnagar, Ramdas was appointed on 20-9-1966 and his services were terminated on 30-3-1989 by the second respondent under Regulation 28(3) of the A.P.S.E.B. Service Regulations. Ramdas died on 28-12-1990. During the life time Ramdas did not institute industrial dispute before the Labour Court. After the death of Ramdas the petitioners instituted I.D. No. 535/92 (old I.D. No. 195/91) in the first respondent Labour Court-III at Hyderabad directly invoking the provisions of Section 2-A(2) of the Act as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act 32 of 1987, claiming that the termination of the services of the workmen was illegal, improper, contrary to the regulations and in violation of principles of natural justice as well as in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. The second respondent in his counter-claim took the contention that the industrial dispute instituted by the petitioners is not maintainable and the action of the Management in terminating the services of the workman under Regulation 28(3) of the Regulations is fully justified and legal. During the pendency of the dispute before the Labour Court the first petitioner examined herself as W.W. 1 and marked Exs. W-1 to W-8 in support of the claim of the petitioners. Second respondent did not adduce any oral evidence but during cross-examination of W.W. 1 eleven documents were marked as Exs. M. 1 to M. 11.

(3.) The learned Labour Court in the first instance proceeded to consider the question whether the petitioners could maintain industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Act. The learned Labour Court after referring to the definition of the terms 'industrial dispute' and 'workman' came to the conclusion that the petitioners have no locus standi to file industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Act. In that view of the finding the Labour Court dismissed the dispute by its award dated 28-2-1994. Being aggrieved by the said award the petitioners have approached this Court by way of this writ petition.