Workmen of J.R.S. Mills (J.R.S. Mills Karmika Sangham) vs Labour Court and Another

Basi Reddi, J.—The only point urged in this writ petition is that the reference by the Government u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act of the dispute relating to the dismissal of the two workmen, Kunna Basanna and Abdul Rashid, was incompetent and that the labour court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. It is argued that these two workmen were dismissed during the pendency of conciliation proceedings before the conciliation officer and there was therefore a contravention of the provisions of Section 33; and in such a case either the Government is not competent to make a reference or a reference should confine itself to the question whether or not the dismissal is lawful. There is no force in this contention.

The Supreme Court has held in a series of oases that in dealing with a complaint u/s 33A for the contravention of Section 33, the tribunal or labour court should not confine itself to the determination of the question as to whether the provisions of Section 33 had been contravened but should go further and decide whether the dismissal or other punishment meted out to the workmen was, in the circumstances, justified. In The Punjab National Bank Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen, at 681 their lordships have pointed out, in dealing with a reference u/s 10 for a contravention of the provisions of Section 33:

In the present case the impugned orders of dismissal have given rise to an industrial dispute which has been referred to the tribunal by the appropriate Government u/s 10. There can be no doubt that if under a complaint filed u/s 33A, a tribunal has to deal not only with the question of contravention but also with the merits of the order of dismissal, the position cannot be any different when a reference is made to the tribunal like the present u/s 10. What is true about the scope of enquiry u/s 33A is a fortiori true in the case of an enquiry u/s 10. What is referred to the tribunal u/s 10 is the industrial dispute between the bank and its employees. The alleged contravention by the bank of Section 33 is no doubt one of the points which the tribunal has to decide; but the decision on this question does not conclude the enquiry. The tribunal would have also to consider whether the impugned orders of dismissal are otherwise justified;

It may also be pointed out that in the case of a contravention of the provisions of Section 33 during the pendency of a conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer, a complaint u/s 33A cannot be filed by the workmen for the obvious reason that Section 33A does not contemplate such a complaint. So the only course open to the workmen seeking redress is to move the Government to refer the dispute u/s 10 for adjudication. Section 31 prescribes a punishment to the employer for contravening the provisions of Section 33. But that again is subject to Section 34 which says that no cognizance of any offence punishable under the Industrial Disputes Act can be taken by any Court except on complaint made by or under authority of the appropriate Government. In any case, that is not the kind of relief which a dismissed workman would be satisfied with. His livelihood is more important for him. That being so, the only effective remedy open to him is u/s 10. That was the procedure which was followed in this case and there is nothing illegal in it. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs.