Bata India Limited vs Bata Employees Association

Subhash B. Adi

Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent No. 2. The petitioner has called in question the order dated 19.6.2012 in IAA-1/CR-34/2011-12 produced at Annexure-G passed by the 2nd respondent.

The 2nd respondent, by the impugned order, had directed prosecution of the petitioner - Management for noncompliance of the order dated 1.10.2008. This is an order passed on Sl. Application No. 48/2003 in I.D. No. 1/2000 (pending on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore).

The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner - Management had filed Sl. applications for permission to confirm the order of dismissal of the employees u/s 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said applications were rejected by order dated 1.10.2008 in Sl. Application No. 48/2008 on the ground that the application u/s 33(2)(b) is not maintainable.

It is against the rejection of the application, the respondent - Union filed an application before the 2nd respondent seeking permission to prosecute the Management for non-compliance of the said order and also for recovery.

There is no operative order which directs the petitioner - Management either for reinstatement or for payment of wages. If the permission sought for by the petitioner - Management for confirmation of the order of dismissal is rejected, the employees might be deemed to have been continued in service and may be entitled for wages. Even assuming that same is not paid, remedy lies to recover the same but it does not confer any right to prosecute the Management. The 2nd respondent, without even applying its mind as to whether there is any violation of the order or award passed by the Tribunal/Labour Court, only on the basis of rejection of the application filed u/s 33(2)(b) of the I.D.Act, has ordered for prosecution. Admittedly, there is no order or direction of any of the competent Court or authority against the Management.

It is now submitted that the Union has filed an application u/s 33(c)(i) for recovery of the wages and also submitted that all the employees have been reinstated. If that is so, when the remedy is available for recovery and when the matter is pending on the said issue, the 2nd respondent erroneously has passed the impugned order. In my opinion, the impugned order is not sustainable in law.

Accordingly, the following order is passed.

Petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 19.6.2012 in No. IAA-1/CR-34/2011-12 produced at Annexure-G passed by the 2nd respondent stands quashed. However, quashing of this impugned order does not come in the way of recovery of arrears of wages, if any in accordance with law.

Learned Government Pleader for the respondent No. 2 is permitted to file memo of appearance within two weeks.