The Divisional Controller KSRTC, Mysore Rural Division vs S. Anand

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Public Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the award dated 25th October, 2012 in reference No. 36/11 of the Labour Court, Mysore Annexure-B in so far as it relates to allowing point No. 1 of the reference and setting aside the order of dismissal dated 4-09-2010 in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and Others, observing that, ''non-filing of an application for approval of the termination of service of a workman under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Act, renders the order of termination non est, has preferred this petition. Respondent though served is absent and unrepresented.

The order of reference by the State Government in exercise of jurisdiction under Sec. 10(1)(c) of the Act discloses two points of reference, one relating to justification of the petitioner corporation in dismissing the respondent from service by order dated 04-09-2010 and the other over justification of not extending the benefit of grant of 16 increments from the year 1994. The Labour Court having noticed the judgment in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and Others, held that the order dated 4-09-2010 of termination of respondent from service was non est and accordingly answered the first point of reference while the second point of reference was answered in the negative against workman by the award impugned, while, directing reinstatement with continuity of service, backwages and consequential benefits.

The Labour Court which is a fact finding court was required to apply its mind to the material on record over the misconduct alleged against workman and to record a finding of fact whether the misconduct is or is not proved. So also the Labour Court was required to record a finding whether the respondent is entitled to full backwages having regard to paragraph 18 of the decision of the Apex Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. K.P. Agrawal and Another, . Prima facie the Labour Court has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it, hence the award in so far as it relates to finding on point No. 1 of reference deserves to be quashed. In the result, this petition is allowed in part, the award of the Labour Court in so far as it relates to the finding on point No. 1 of reference and the direction to reinstate the respondent with full backwages and continuity of service and consequential benefits is quashed. Proceeding is remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration on point No. 1 of reference and to pass judgment and award in accordance with law after extending a reasonably opportunity of hearing to parties.