EMPLOYEES IN RELATION TO MALKERAH COLLIERY OF M/S TATA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, LABOUR COURT, DHANBAD & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four writ applications have been heard together as their facts are similar and the points involved in them are identical. They are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) Shri Ayodhya Ram, respondent No. 2, was a minor working in Malkerah Colliery of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.; the employer is the petitioner in all the writ applications. During the pendency of Reference case No. 132 of 1967 the service of Ayodhya Ram was terminated by the employer by order dated 25-8-66 passed under certain provisions of the Standing Orders. The employer applied for approval of its action of dismissal under the proviso to cl. (b) of Section 33 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter called the Act. A copy of that application dated 26-9-66 is Annexure 2. Notice of this application was received by Ayodhya Ram on 9-9-66. Some more workmen not connected with Reference Case No. 132 of 1967 had also been dismissed by the employer. A settlement in connection with the dismissal of those workmen including that of Ayodhya Ram was arrived at between the employer and the employees on 2-8-67, a copy of which settlement is Annexure 3. They agreed to refer their disputes to the arbitration of the Regional Labour Commissioner. The arbitrator gave his award on 16-2-68 (Annexure 3/b) holding that the dismissal of Ayodhya Ram was justified. Thereupon the employer was advised to file an application for withdrawal of the application filed before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 2) under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act. Accordingly an application dated 11-8-69 was filed on 12-8-69 (vide Annexure 4). The Tribunal passed an order dated 12-8-69 (Vide Annexure 5). allowing the withdrawal but without adjudicating on the reasons for the withdrawal, namely, the award made by the Regional Labour Commissioner. Ayodhya Ram filed an application on 1-12-69 under Section 33-C(2) of the Act for his wages for the period 25-8-66 to 30-11-69. The management resisted this application on the ground of there being an award of the Regional Labour Commissioner as also on the ground that an application under Section 33-C (2) was not maintainable, without getting rid of the order of dismissal passed by the Management on 25-8-66. The Labour Court has rejected the pleas raised by the employer in its order dated 22-8-70 (Annexure 1), and has allowed the claim of the concerned workman. The employer has filed C. W. J. C. 2009 of 1970 to attack the order of the Labour Court dated 22-8-70 (Annexure 1).

(3.) Ayodhya Ram has filed another application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act to claim his wages for the period 1-12-69 to 22-9-70. The employer has filed C. W. J. C.232 of 1971 for a writ of prohibition to injunct the Labour Court from proceeding with the subsequent case on the grounds which are identical to those in C. W. J. C. 2009 of 1970.