KAMLESH SHARMA Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a dismissed Conductor in the respondents establishment and has challenged the disciplinary proceedings initiated and dismissal from service on various grounds particularly pertaining to violation of Standard Standing Orders formulated under the M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. Petitioner is a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (S) of the Industrial Disputes Act and has efficacious remedy of raising the dispute under Section 2 (A) of Industrial Disputes Act and by intervention of the Labour Court. Wide powers are conferred on the Labour Court to go into the punishment also and in view of the provisions of Section 11 (A) of Industrial Disputes Act, Labour Court has full jurisdiction to enquire into factual aspects of the matter including the validity of Departmental Enquiry conducted and the quantum of punishment.

(2.) The Karnataka High Court in the case of Mohini Vs. General Manager Syndicate Bank, 1995 1 LLJ 351, has laid down a principle that when efficacious remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act is available and when benefit of Section 11 (A) can be availed of interference directly by a Writ Court is not warranted.

(3.) In the case o Mohini (supra), it has been so held by the learned Court :-