Case Note & Summary
The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) appealed against the judgment of a Single Judge affirming the Labour Court's rejection of its application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent, John D'Souza, was a conductor employed by KSRTC. An industrial dispute was already pending before the Labour Court. Meanwhile, KSRTC conducted a domestic enquiry into alleged misconduct, which was found fair and proper by both the Labour Court and the Single Judge. However, when KSRTC sought approval to dismiss the respondent under Section 33(2)(b), the Labour Court rejected the application. The Single Judge affirmed this decision. The Division Bench held that the scope of enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) is very limited and does not involve adjudication of the industrial dispute. Relying on Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N. Banerjee, AIR 1958 SC 79, the court stated that the Tribunal only has to consider whether the ban under Section 33(1) is lifted and grant approval. Since the domestic enquiry was fair and proper, the Labour Court erred in rejecting the application. The appeal was allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the application under Section 33(2)(b) was granted.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Section 33(2)(b) - Scope of Enquiry - Limited Approval - The Labour Court, while dealing with an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, cannot adjudicate upon the industrial dispute but only consider whether the ban under Section 33(1) is lifted and grant approval of the employer's action. The court exceeded its jurisdiction by rejecting the application on merits. (Paras 7-9)
B) Industrial Law - Domestic Enquiry - Fair and Proper - Once the Labour Court and Single Judge found the domestic enquiry fair and proper, the Labour Court ought to have granted approval under Section 33(2)(b) instead of rejecting the application. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court, while considering an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, can adjudicate upon the merits of the industrial dispute or is limited to granting approval of the employer's action.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the Single Judge dated November 21, 2014 in Writ Petition No.10271/2014 and the judgment and award of the Labour Court dated October 6, 2013 in S.A. No.1/2010 are set aside. The application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is granted.
Law Points
- Scope of Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 is limited to granting approval of dismissal
- not adjudicating merits of dispute
- Labour Court cannot substitute its own findings on misconduct when domestic enquiry is fair and proper
Case Details
2016 LawText (KAR) (07) 42
Writ Appeal No. 30 of 2015 (L-KSRTC)
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, Chief Justice, Ravi Malimath
Smt. H.R. Renuka (for appellant), Mr. John D'Souza (party in person)
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against order of Single Judge affirming Labour Court's rejection of employer's application under Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for approval of dismissal of workman.
Remedy Sought
Appellant (KSRTC) sought setting aside of the Single Judge's order and grant of approval for dismissal of respondent under Section 33(2)(b).
Filing Reason
Labour Court rejected the employer's application for approval of dismissal despite finding domestic enquiry fair and proper.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court rejected application under Section 33(2)(b) on October 6, 2013; Single Judge affirmed on November 21, 2014.
Issues
Whether the Labour Court, under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, can adjudicate the merits of the industrial dispute or is limited to granting approval of the employer's action.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the Labour Court exceeded its limited jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b) by adjudicating the dispute instead of merely granting approval.
Respondent argued in support of the Labour Court's order.
Ratio Decidendi
The scope of enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is limited to considering whether the ban under Section 33(1) is lifted and granting approval of the employer's action; the Labour Court cannot adjudicate upon the industrial dispute. Once the domestic enquiry is found fair and proper, the Labour Court must grant approval.
Judgment Excerpts
The scope of an enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act is very limited.
The issue is no longer res integra.
In the case of MARTIN BURN LTD. .v. R.N.BANERJEE reported in AIR 1958 SC 79, the Supreme Court of India holds that the Tribunal before whom an application is made under that Section, has not to adjudicate upon any industrial dispute arising between the employer and the workman, but has only got to consider, whether the ban which is imposed under Section 33(1) is lifted or not.
Procedural History
The respondent was employed as a conductor. An industrial dispute was pending before the Labour Court. The employer conducted a domestic enquiry for alleged misconduct, found fair and proper. The employer applied under Section 33(2)(b) for approval of dismissal. The Labour Court rejected the application on October 6, 2013. The respondent filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by the Single Judge on November 21, 2014. The employer filed this writ appeal.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 33(2)(b)
- Karnataka High Court Act: 4
