AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—The Petitioner, a private limited company was engaged in processing of fabrics in its industrial undertaking at Bisavanahalli Village, besides Anandavana, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, by employing workmen. The Petitioner has executed a sale deed dated 24.03.2008 in respect of the said establishment in favour of the 3rd Respondent. The Petitioner in order to discontinue the service of the workmen, who were on its rolls, paid retrenchment compensation by sending cheques, which have been returned by the workmen.
The 2nd Respondent - employees union filed a complaint before the 1st Respondent alleging violation of Sections 25-N and Section 33(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ''the Act''). The 1st Respondent passed an order dated 11.09.2009 as at Annexure-D, holding that, the Petitioner violated Sections 25-N and Section 33(1) of the Act and authorising the Labour Commissioner to take action. Questioning the legality of the said order, this writ petition has been filed.
The 1st Respondent, noticing the existence of industrial dispute between the parties, passed an order dated 23.03.2011 referring the points of dispute to the Addi. Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, for adjudication. The Petitioner questioned the validity of said order of reference in WP 38089/2009.
The Respondents 1 and 2 have filed separate statement of objections in justification of the order passed by the 1st Respondent, impugned in this writ petition.
learned Counsel appearing on both sides made submissions at length. Since the order referring the industrial dispute for adjudication by the Addl. Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, had not taken into consideration the stand of the Petitioner in the objections filed before the Conciliation Authority, prima facie, finding that the terms of reference is not comprehensive, it was suggested to the parties, whether there can be additional terms of reference or a fresh reference for adjudication of the dispute by the Tribunal. The Petitioner and the Respondent - employees'' union, filed the additional points of reference, to be adjudicated by the Tribunal.
On account of mutual agreement reached within the parties, the order of reference dated 19.09.2009, questioned in WP 38089/2009, was quashed and the points of dispute, as mutually agreed and required to be adjudicated was finalized and the 1st Respondent was directed to pass an order immediately and make a reference to the Addl. Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, for adjudication.
Sri Subba Rao, Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the 2nd Respondent-union, concedes that, the order impugned in this writ petition has been passed by the 1st Respondent, by taking into consideration the points of reference dated 19.9.2009, which has now been quashed.
Keeping in view the events that have taken place subsequent to the passing of impugned order and the submissions of learned Senior Advocates appearing for the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent-union, when the impugned order is examined, it is apparent that the 1st Respondent without proper consideration of the materials placed on record by both the parties, passed the impugned order. In view of the quashing of the order of reference dated 19.9.2009, the impugned order herein cannot be upheld. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
Writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The Petitioner is at liberty to file additional statement of objections if any, before the 1st Respondent, within one week from today.
The 1st Respondent is directed to re-consider the matter in accordance with law by taking into consideration the subsequent events which have taken place leading to quashing of the order of reference dated 19.09.2009 and the order passed in WP 38089/2009 and take decision in the matter.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.
Misc. W. No. 723/2010 does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of accordingly.