Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. (KFIL), filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 04/03/2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli. The Tribunal, while keeping the Serial Applications Nos. 2 to 5 of 2007 filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 61(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Rules) 1957 pending, suo motu raised a preliminary issue and held that the domestic enquiry against the respondent-workmen was vitiated. The petitioner management contended that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to raise such a preliminary issue without first adjudicating the applications. The respondents-workmen supported the Tribunal's order. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction by suo motu raising the preliminary issue and deciding it against the management. The court observed that the applications under Section 33(2)(b) were still pending and the Tribunal ought to have decided them on merits. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The court directed the Tribunal to decide the applications expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal - Suo Motu Preliminary Issue - Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Industrial Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by suo motu raising a preliminary issue regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry and holding it vitiated, while the applications under Section 33(2)(b) for approval of dismissal were still pending. The Tribunal ought to have decided the applications on merits before examining the validity of the enquiry. Held that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Tribunal could suo motu raise a preliminary issue regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry and hold it vitiated, without first adjudicating the pending applications under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 04/03/2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli in Serial Application Nos. 2/2007, 3/2007, 4/2007 & 5/2007 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The Tribunal is directed to decide the applications expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Industrial Tribunal cannot suo motu raise preliminary issue regarding validity of domestic enquiry without adjudicating application under Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Tribunal must decide application on merits before examining validity of enquiry
- Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act
- Rule 61(2) of Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Rules) 1957
- Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2017 LawText (KAR) (03) 31
Writ Petition Nos.63075-78/2010(L-RES)
Ravi Hegde for petitioner, Anant P Savadi for respondents
M/s Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd.
K. Shivaramappa and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India challenging order of Industrial Tribunal
Remedy Sought
Quashing of order dated 04/03/2010 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Hubli in Serial Application Nos. 2/2007, 3/2007, 4/2007 & 5/2007
Filing Reason
Industrial Tribunal suo motu raised preliminary issue and held domestic enquiry vitiated without adjudicating pending applications under Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Previous Decisions
Industrial Tribunal passed impugned order on 04/03/2010
Issues
Whether the Industrial Tribunal could suo motu raise a preliminary issue regarding validity of domestic enquiry without adjudicating the pending applications under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to suo motu raise preliminary issue and decide it against the management without first adjudicating the applications under Section 33(2)(b).
Respondents supported the Tribunal's order.
Ratio Decidendi
An Industrial Tribunal cannot suo motu raise a preliminary issue regarding the validity of a domestic enquiry and hold it vitiated without first adjudicating the pending applications under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Such action is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner, Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. (KFIL) has filed these writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, against four respondents-workmen, aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Hubli on Serial Application Nos.2 to 5 of 2007 in an already pending Dispute vide KID No.2/2006, whereby the learned Industrial Tribunal, while keeping the aforesaid Serial Applications filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(for short, ‘the Act’) read with Rule 61(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Rules) 1957, as pending, itself suo-motu raised a preliminary issue and held against the petitioner Management that the Domestic Enquiry against the respondents workmen was vitiated.
Procedural History
The petitioner management filed applications under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli in a pending dispute (KID No.2/2006). The Tribunal, without adjudicating those applications, suo motu raised a preliminary issue and passed an order on 04/03/2010 holding the domestic enquiry vitiated. The management challenged this order by filing writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The High Court heard the matter on 03/03/2017 and reserved judgment, which was pronounced on 09/03/2017.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 33(2)(b)
- Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Rules) 1957: 61(2)
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
