Case Note & Summary
The workman, formerly an Accountant at Bharat Electronics Limited, was dismissed from service following a strike on 11 December 2013. He joined the company in 1995 and was promoted in 2010. He was actively involved in union activities. Several unions formed a United Action Front and issued a strike notice under Section 22(1)(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for 11 December 2013. The management appealed to employees to ignore the strike. On the night before the strike, union members assembled at the estate grievance office; the Chief Security Officer complained to the police alleging unauthorized stay and presence of anti‑social elements. On the day of the strike, security reports alleged that at Kuvempu Circle the workman, along with two others, stopped buses, shouted abuses, and threatened executives and contract workers. At the Officers Club area, striking employees sat on the road to obstruct vehicles carrying executives and resorted to spitting. An earlier report of 10 December 2013 alleged that the workman consumed alcohol and abused the duty security officer. An enquiry was initiated but the Enquiry Officer prematurely closed it on 16 June 2014, stating that the Presenting Officer could not produce management witnesses due to an incident on 8 June 2014 where the workman allegedly assaulted a security supervisor and threatened him. On 17 June 2014, the Chairman and Managing Director invoked Section 15A of the Certified Standing Orders, dispensed with the enquiry, and dismissed the workman with immediate effect. On 18 June 2014, the General Manager passed a final order dismissing the workman, enclosing a cheque for one month’s wage, and intimating that an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act had been filed. The workman then filed an application under Section 2A(2) and (3) before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru. By order dated 13 March 2015, the CGIT held the application premature because the approval application was still pending and directed the papers be returned. The workman filed two writ petitions: one challenging the dismissal orders of 17 June 2014 and 18 June 2014, and the other challenging the CGIT order of 13 March 2015. The two petitions were heard together. The judgment excerpt does not contain the court’s final operative order or reasoning on the merits.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dismissal of the workman under Section 15A of the Certified Standing Orders was valid; Whether the CGIT erred in returning the application under Section 2A(2)(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act as premature.
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (10) 41
WRIT PETITION NOS.55121-55122/2015 (L-TER) c/w WRIT PETITION NOS.18832/2015 (L-TER)
M Veerabhadraiah for petitioner, Ismail M. Musba for respondents R1 to R4 & R6, P D Vishwanath for respondent in WP 18832/2015
M/s Bharath Electronics Limited, The General Manager (Mil.Com), The General Manager (H.R), The Deputy General Manager (Fin/MCE), Sri Subramanya Raja Urs, Sri Sudhakar Chowdary T
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Challenge to dismissal order and CGIT order returning application under Section 2A(2)(3) as premature
Remedy Sought
Quashing of dismissal order dated 17.06.2014 and final order dated 18.06.2014, and quashing of CGIT order dated 13.03.2015
Filing Reason
Workman alleged that dismissal was illegal, enquiry prematurely closed without valid reason, and CGIT wrongly returned his application despite pendency of approval application.
Previous Decisions
Chairman and Managing Director dismissed workman on 17.06.2014 under Section 15A; Enquiry Officer prematurely closed enquiry on 16.06.2014 and General Manager issued final dismissal order on 18.06.2014; CGIT & Labour Court by order dated 13.03.2015 held workman's application under Section 2A(2)(3) premature as approval application pending, and directed return of papers.
Issues
Whether the order of dismissal dated 17.06.2014 passed under Section 15A of the Certified Standing Orders is valid
Whether the final order of dismissal dated 18.06.2014 after premature closure of enquiry is valid
Whether the CGIT erred in returning the application under Section 2A(2)(3) as premature
Judgment Excerpts
the Chairman invoking the authority vested in him under Section 15A of the Certified Standing Orders of the Bangalore Complex, was pleased to dispense with the ongoing enquiry and was further pleased to order dismissal of the petitioner with immediate effect.
the CGIT & LC has opined that the application under Section 2A of the Act read with sub-sections (2) and (3) is premature in the light of the fact that the approval application preferred by the respondent-employer is still pending consideration and has opined that the papers be returned to the petitioner-workman.
Procedural History
Workman joined BEL in 1995, promoted to Accountant in 2010. Strike notice issued on 25.11.2013 under Section 22(1)(B). Strike held on 11.12.2013. Allegations of misconduct during strike reported. Enquiry initiated, prematurely closed on 16.06.2014. Dismissal order passed by Chairman on 17.06.2014 under Section 15A. Final order of dismissal issued by General Manager on 18.06.2014 with Section 33(2)(b) approval application. Workman filed application under Section 2A(2)(3) before CGIT. CGIT by order dated 13.03.2015 returned application as premature. Writ petitions filed challenging dismissal orders and CGIT order.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2A(2), Section 2A(3), Section 33(2)(b), Section 22(1)(B)
- Certified Standing Orders: Section 15A
- Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226, Article 227
