CHODAVARAM CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LTD GOWADA, NOW KNOWN AS CHODAVARAM CO-OPERATIVE SUGARS LTD GOVADA Vs. R V S N JAGAPATHI RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the Chodavaram Co-operative Agricultural and Industrial Society Limited, Govada (hereinafter referred to as 'the management') against the order of the Labour Court, Guntur (the 2nd respondent) dated 7-2-1975 in M.P. No. 33 of 1974 overruling the preliminary objection of the management that the workman 1st respondent is not a concerned workman within the meaning of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The learned counsel for the management mainly contended that the view taken by the Labour Court that if a union espouses a cause and the workman is a member of that union, it is sufficient to hold that the workman is a concerned workman within the meaning of Section 33(2) of the Act is not correct. In fact the 1st respondent workman is in no way connected with the dispute pending before the Labour Court, therefore Section 33 (2) (b) is not attracted to rise (sic.) to an application under Section 33-A of the Act. Accordingly it is contended that the petition filed by the 1st respondent under Section 33-A of the Act is not maintainable.

(3.) To appreciate the above point it is necessary to note a few facts of the case. The 1st respondent filed a complaint under Section 33-A of the Act that the management terminated his services without obtaining the necessary approval of the 2nd respondent, Labour Court as required under Section 33(2) (b) of the Act since Industrial disputes, I.D. Nos. 89/71 and 7/72 were pending before the Labour Court. The management in their counter stated that the workman was charged for misconduct, fraud and dishonesty. The charges were proved against him. So he was dismissed from service by an order dated 27-11-1973. That apart I.D. Nos. 89/71 and 7/72 were finally heard and they were reserved for passing award. Further a partial award was passed in respect of 3 workmen in I.D. No. 89/71 and the proceedings were kept open in respect of the other employees and the matter was posted for further hearing. The management took a preliminary objection that the 2nd respondent-workman is not 'a concerned workman in the dispute' within the meaning of the expression used in Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act and therefore the petition is not maintainable. This preliminary objection was requested to be taken up first and it was accordingly taken up and decided.