Holeyappa vs The Divisional Controller

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—The petitioner who was working as a Junior Assistant in the services of the respondent was dismissed from service, on 6.2.2008 on the ground that he had stolen a sum of Rs. 5 98,869 = 50. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the petitioner filed the petition invoking Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court, Bijapur, by its award, dated 23.4.2010 dismissed the petition. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties.

The issue is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and Others, has held that the discharge or dismissal order passed by the employer in contravention of the mandatory conditions contained in the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act renders such an order inoperative and ineffective. The failure to make an application seeking the approval of the concerned authority before whom the conciliation proceedings are pending and not obtaining the approval for the dismissal orders would render the dismissal orders unsustainable.

It is not in dispute that in the instant case the industrial dispute over the charter of demands in K.I.D. No. 14/2008 is pending consideration before the jurisdictional Labour Court. No doubt, the dispute is raised by the KSRTC Staff and Workers'' Federation, but the adjudication of the said dispute involves the interests of the workmen. Therefore this Court, following the Apex Court's decision in Jaipur Zila Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited case (supra) has by its orders, dated 7.3.2012 in W.P. No. 6136/2012 and dated 26.6.2012 in W.P. No. 65378/2011 and other connected petitions have been consistently holding that the dismissal orders are non est.

The submission of Shri S.C. Hiremath, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is giving up his entire claim for the back wages is placed on record.

Following the afore-referred cases this petition is disposed of holding that the dismissal order, dated 6.2.2008 is inoperative and ineffective. The impugned award is also quashed. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner into its service, but without back-wages, within four weeks from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of today's order.