AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the award dated 21.10.2011 passed in KID No. 81/2011. The Labour Court has rejected the claim petition filed by the petitioner herein. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.
The petitioner was proceeded against in respect of the charge of unauthorised absence and thereafter, order of dismissal dated 14.06.2011 was passed. Against the said order, the petitioner was before the Labour Court assailing the same. In respect of the same, the parties had tendered evidence. The Labour Court, after recording the evidence of the petitioner as W.W.1 and examination of the witnesses on behalf of the respondent-management as M.Ws.1 and 2 and also relying on the documents at Exs. M. 1 to M. 19, was of the view that the charge alleged against the petitioner had been established and even did not see any reason to exercise the discretion u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is, therefore, the Labour Court dismissed the application.
Though insofar as the consideration of the material available on record, the Labour Court was justified, what is to be noticed is that the order of dismissal is dated 14.06.2011. As on the said date, a dispute relating to the charter of demands was pending between the union of the workers and the respondent-management in ID No. 148/2005. In that view, it was necessary for the respondent-Corporation to seek approval of the action by filing an appropriate application u/s 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The same has not been made in the instant case and, therefore, the dismissal order dated 14.06.2011 cannot be sustained. This aspect of the matter has already been considered by this Court in W.P.No. 65466/2011 disposed of on 07.08.2012. Hence, in the instant case also the same would have to be applied. In view of the above said position, the same has been done by this Court in several cases. The petitioner herein has agreed to forego the backwages and receive notional consequential benefits for fixing the wages. In that view of the matter, the order of punishment dated 14.06.2011 is set aside. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with effect from 01.112012. The petitioner shall, however, be not entitled to backwages, but he shall be entitled to continuity of service and notional consequential benefits for the purpose of fixing his wages on reinstatement.
The petition is allowed in part in the above terms.