Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (NEKRTC), challenged the judgment and award dated 18.07.2009 of the Labour Court, Gulbarga, in K.I.D. No.83/2005. The Labour Court had set aside the dismissal of the respondent-conductor, Vithoba, and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages. The respondent was a conductor employed by the Corporation. During his service, an industrial dispute was pending before the Labour Court. The Corporation dismissed the respondent from service without obtaining approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and without paying one month's wages as required by that provision. The respondent challenged the dismissal before the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that the dismissal was void for non-compliance with Section 33(2)(b) and ordered reinstatement without backwages. The Corporation filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court heard both sides. The Corporation argued that the respondent was not a 'workman' and that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction. However, the High Court noted that the issue of whether the respondent was a workman had already been decided by the Labour Court and was not challenged. The High Court held that the Corporation's failure to comply with Section 33(2)(b) by not obtaining approval and not paying one month's wages rendered the dismissal void ab initio. The High Court found no perversity in the Labour Court's order and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the reinstatement without backwages.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33(2)(b) - Approval of Dismissal - Pending Industrial Dispute - The petitioner-Corporation dismissed the respondent-conductor while an industrial dispute was pending before the Labour Court. The Corporation did not obtain approval under Section 33(2)(b) nor pay one month's wages. The Labour Court set aside the dismissal and ordered reinstatement without backwages. The High Court upheld the order, holding that non-compliance with Section 33(2)(b) renders the dismissal void ab initio. (Paras 2-4)
B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33(2)(b) - Payment of One Month's Wages - The requirement to pay one month's wages is a mandatory condition precedent for seeking approval of dismissal. Failure to pay renders the dismissal invalid. The Corporation's argument that the respondent was not a 'workman' was rejected as the Labour Court had already decided that issue. (Paras 3-4)
C) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33(2)(b) - Reinstatement without Backwages - The Labour Court directed reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages. The High Court found no perversity in this order and dismissed the writ petition. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dismissal of the respondent-conductor was valid when the petitioner-Corporation did not comply with Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by failing to obtain approval from the Labour Court and not paying one month's wages despite a pending industrial dispute.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Labour Court's order dated 18.07.2009 in K.I.D. No.83/2005, which set aside the dismissal of the respondent-conductor and directed reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages.
Law Points
- Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- approval of dismissal
- one month's wages
- pending industrial dispute
- reinstatement without backwages
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (03) 87
Writ Petition No.63701 of 2010 (L-KSRTC)
Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, Prashant S. Kadadevar
The NEKRTC, through its Managing Director, Sarige Sadan, Main Road, Gulbarga and The NEKRTC, through Divisional Controller, Koppal Division, Koppal
Vithoba, S/O Hanamanthappa Badiger
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and award of the Labour Court, Gulbarga, which set aside the dismissal of the respondent-conductor and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (NEKRTC) sought to quash the Labour Court order dated 18.07.2009 in K.I.D. No.83/2005 and to dismiss the respondent's claim.
Filing Reason
The petitioners challenged the Labour Court's order on the ground that the respondent was not a 'workman' and that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction, and that the dismissal was valid.
Previous Decisions
The Labour Court, Gulbarga, in K.I.D. No.83/2005, set aside the dismissal of the respondent and directed reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages.
Issues
Whether the dismissal of the respondent-conductor was valid when the petitioner-Corporation did not comply with Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by failing to obtain approval from the Labour Court and not paying one month's wages despite a pending industrial dispute.
Whether the Labour Court's order of reinstatement without backwages was perverse or illegal.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the respondent was not a 'workman' and that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.
The respondent argued that the dismissal was void for non-compliance with Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the Corporation did not obtain approval or pay one month's wages despite a pending industrial dispute.
Ratio Decidendi
The dismissal of a workman during the pendency of an industrial dispute without complying with Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which requires obtaining approval from the Labour Court and paying one month's wages, renders the dismissal void ab initio. The Labour Court's order of reinstatement without backwages is not perverse and does not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner-North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation is before this Court in it’s writ jurisdiction assailing the judgment and award dated 18.07.2009 rendered by the Labour Court, Gulbarga, in K.I.D. No.83/2005, a copy whereof is at Annexure-B, whereby the dismissal of the respondent-conductor has been set at naught with a direction to reinstate him with continuity of service sans backwages.
The learned panel counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent was not a workman and therefore the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. This submission is not available to the petitioners inasmuch as the issue as to whether the respondent is a workman or not has already been decided by the Labour Court and the same is not challenged.
The learned panel counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent was not a workman and therefore the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. This submission is not available to the petitioners inasmuch as the issue as to whether the respondent is a workman or not has already been decided by the Labour Court and the same is not challenged.
The learned panel counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent was not a workman and therefore the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. This submission is not available to the petitioners inasmuch as the issue as to whether the respondent is a workman or not has already been decided by the Labour Court and the same is not challenged.
Procedural History
The respondent-conductor was dismissed by the petitioner-Corporation. An industrial dispute was pending before the Labour Court. The respondent challenged the dismissal before the Labour Court in K.I.D. No.83/2005. The Labour Court set aside the dismissal and ordered reinstatement without backwages on 18.07.2009. The Corporation filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, which was dismissed on 11.03.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 33(2)(b)
