P. PURNACHANDRA RAO, S/O. SHOWRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, E.NO. 384046, R/O. VENKATAPPAIAH COLONY, LALAPURAM ROAD, 3RD LANE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT Vs. THE LABOUR COURT, GUNTUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was initially appointed as a Driver in the year 1990. He was served with charge memo dated 29.11.1997 alleging that he was intentionally did not operate the bus on two occasions, causing lot of inconvenience to the passengers and disrepute to the respondent-Corporation. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated imposing punishment of termination from service in the year 1998. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected. In the review, the reviewing authority upheld the disciplinary action, but modified the punishment imposed on the petitioner to that of a fresh candidate and all other service benefits were denied. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised Industrial Dispute in the labour Court, Guntur and the same was registered as I.D.No. 267 of 2001. The ID was rejected on the ground that the labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim directly under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). According to the labour Court, the termination order no more subsists as it was modified by the order of reviewing authority to that of fresh appointment and therefore, Section 2-A (2) of the Act is not attracted. The labour Court also observed that the reviewing authority is competent to issue order of fresh appointment. In support of the findings of the labour Court that the claim under Section 2-A (2) of the Act is not maintainable, the labour Court relies on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in B.Vidyasagar v. Depot Manager, APSRTC, Karimnagar 2006 (4) ALT 280 (DB) .

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri G. Ravi Mohan and learned Government pleader for Labour for respondent No.1 and Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3.

(3.) Having regard to the fact that the Labour Court refused to entertain the dispute raised by the petitioner holding that no dispute can be raised by the workman under Section 2-A(2) of the Act on the ground that the order of dismissal/removal no more subsists, whether such decision is legal and valid and whether the Labour Court erred in not entertaining and adjudicating the dispute on merits, is the issue for consideration. The arguments are advanced by learned counsel on this point only.