(1.) The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of mining lime stone, manufacture and sale of cement. The workman/4th respondent (for short workman) in the writ petition was working in Mines Department. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the allegation of unauthorized absence, which ultimately resulted in dismissal from service by order dated 05.12.2011. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, workman raised industrial dispute and filed claim statement under Section 2 -A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the Act) (state amendment) in the Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court at Anantapur (for short the Tribunal). The award was made on 02.05.2014 setting aside the order of dismissal from service. The petitioner was directed to reinstate the employee into service with continuity of service and all attendant benefits. However, the Tribunal denied back wages. Challenging the said award this writ petition is filed.
(2.) Sri C.R. Sreedharan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner made elaborate submissions on maintainability of the dispute before the Tribunal and on merits of the findings recorded by the Tribunal.
(3.) Learned senior counsel contended that cement industry is a Controlled Industry as notified by the Central Government under the Industrial Disputes Act (for brevity the Act) and therefore, the appropriate Government with reference to constitution of Industrial Tribunal and entrustment of industrial disputes concerning controlled industry is the Central Government. The Central Government has to constitute the Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court at Anantapur is constituted by the State Government. Thus, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by the respondent workman and thus the award is not an award in the eye of law and is unenforceable.