A dismissed workman challenged the Labour Court's rejection of his claim under Section 10(4A) and Section 2A of the I.D. Act. The High Court found the Labour Court's finding that the employer had obtained Section 33(2)(b) approval was erroneous, as no approval order existed on record.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:24752 WP No. 4278 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 4278 OF 2015 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHIVARAMACHARY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE KRISHNACHARY, JANATHA COLONY, 268/2, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, HULIMAVU, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 076.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.S.SUBRAHMANYA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
MANAGEMENT OF FOURESS ENGINEERING LIMITED, PLOT NO.2, II PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE-560 058, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANGER-HR.
…RESPONDENT Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR M R SRI. SOMASHEKAR., ADVOCATE) Location: High Court of Karnataka THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2024:KHC:24752 WP No. 4278 of 2015
ORDER
Sri.K.S.Subrahmanya., learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri.S.N.Murthy., learned Senior counsel on behalf of Sri.Somashekar., for the respondent have appeared in person.
2. The brief facts are these:
The petitioner was a permanent workman of the respondent Company. He was an Executive Member of the Fouress Engineering Karmika Sangha, a registered Trade Union of the employees of the Company. Because of certain misconduct, he came under disciplinary proceedings. A domestic inquiry was conducted, and it was held he was guilty of the charges. Based on the findings of the Inquiry Officer, he was dismissed from service with effect from 03.11.1999. It said that at the time of the dismissal order, an Industrial dispute was pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, Division No.1. Though the Management had preferred an application for approval of the dismissal order, it failed to obtain an order from the said Authority approving the dismissal as required under Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
NC: 2024:KHC:24752 WP No. 4278 of 2015
As the matter stood thus the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute against his dismissal by filing a claim application under Section 10(4A) of the I.D. Act, (Karnataka Amendment), 1987 and Section 2A of the I.D. Act, 1947 on 03.01.2000 in I.D.No.03/2000 by the First Addl. Labor Court, Bangalore, and notices were issued to the parties. On receipt of the notice, the Management filed its objections. The petitioner applied to frame an additional issue on 18.07.2012 as to whether the respondent has obtained approval of its action under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act from the Conciliation Officer. The Labor Court framed additional issue No.1 as under:
"Whether the 2nd party proves that it has obtained approval of its action in dismissing the 1st party from service, from Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Conciliation Officer, where an industrial dispute in I.D.A. SR.ID-23/99-2000 with regard to Charter of Demands was pending at that time"
The Labour Court vide award dated 08.04.2013 rejected the claim statement. It is this award that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:24752 WP No. 4278 of 2015
several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.
By way of reply to this contention, learned Senior counsel Sri.S.N.Murthy., fairly submits that though the Management has applied for approval under Section 33(2)(b). However, no order of approval has been passed as of today. Hence, an appropriate order may be passed.
The contention regarding the order under Section 33(2)(b) is noted with care. The petitioner was dismissed from service on account of certain misconduct. The Management applied under section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act and the same
was registered as I.D.A.SR.ID-23/99-2000. The order of approval has not been passed as of today. However, the Labor Court while answering the additional issue No.1 held that the Management had obtained approval from Assistant Labour Commissioner. This is erroneous. the reason is apparent. There is nothing on record about the order of approval. If that be so, the finding on additional issue No.1 is unsustainable in law. The Labor court is required to answer the additional issue no 1 correctly. The rejection of the claim petition is untenable. Hence, in my view, the matter requires a remand, and the award is liable to be set aside.
dated:08.04.2013 passed by the I Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore in I.D.No.03/2000 vide Annexure-B is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Labor Court for fresh consideration.
Sd/JUDGE
MRP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Labour Court erred in holding that the Management had obtained approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act when no approval order existed on record.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Shivaramachary
Management of Fouress Engineering Limited
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
