AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.L. Manjunath, J.—Shri L. Shekar, the learned counsel undertakes to file power on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6136 of 2012 dated 7th March 2012 is called in question in this appeal.
Facts leading to this appeal are as hereunder:
The deceased respondent was appointed by the appellant in 1982. On the ground that he had claimed false medical reimbursement in respect of the treatment given to his wife Kanthamma, a charge memo was issued and enquiry was held. Considering the reply of the workman, he was dismissed from the service.
Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, a dispute was raised and the same was a adjudicated under Reference No. 23 of 2010. The Labour Court held that the order of dismissal is non-est in the eye of law on account of non-observation of mandatory provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the ID Act"). Accordingly, the reference came to be rejected.
The order of the Labour Court was questioned by the appellant before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, considering the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and Others, dismissed the writ petition. Therefore the present appeal is filed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court, consistently, following the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaipur Zilla Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited (supra), has ruled that non-observation of Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act will render the order of dismissal non-est. Therefore, we do not see any error committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.