K. VARADARAYA NAYAK Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the Communication/order dated 11.04.2013 at Annexure-A to the petition. The petitioner was working in the Respondent No. 3- Establishment. Certain disputes relating to the cessation of employees in respondent No. 3 had arisen. At the first instance, the petitioner having raised the dispute, the conciliation having failed, matter was referred to the Labour Court, Mangaluru, which was registered in Reference No. 9/2000 and the award dated 28.05.2003 was passed.

(2.) The respondent No. 3 herein, claiming to be aggrieved by the said award, was before this Court in W.P. No. 46610/2003, which was disposed of on 30.11.2007. The petitioner herein claiming to be aggrieved by the said order, was before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1158/2008 and respondent No. 3 herein also being aggrieved by the said order, was before the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A. No. 35/2008. Both the appeals were clubbed and considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench through its order dated 02/12/2010. Insofar as the issues raised therein, the Hon'ble Division Bench had remitted the matter to the Labour Court by framing the questions that were required to be considered by the Labour Court. In that regard, the first aspect which was required to be considered by the Labour Court was with regard to the appropriate Government which is competent to refer the industrial disputes to the Labour Court. Pursuant thereto, the Labour Court having considered the matter, has through its award dated 26.10.2011 held that in the present case, the appropriate Government would be the Central Government to refer the industrial dispute to the appropriate Labour Court. It is in that background, the impugned order dated 11.04.2013 came to be passed by respondent No. 1. Therefore, in that background, the question is as to whether having taken note of the sequence in which the question relating to the appropriate Government, in the instant case was adjudicated, whether the manner in which respondent No. 1 has arrived at its conclusion that there is no dispute to be considered would be justified?

(3.) The respondent No. 3 has filed its objections to the writ petition and the learned counsel for the respondents have also sought to justify the action. In that regard, having heard the learned counsel for the parties, a perusal of the order at Annexure-A would disclose that, the respondent No. 1 has concluded that the petitioner herein had voluntarily tendered his resignation on 12.11.1998 and the same was accepted by the third respondent-Management and was conveyed to him. It is in that view, respondent No. 1 has arrived at the conclusion that there is no illegal termination and reference was not made. In that background, what is necessary to be taken note is that at the first instance when the petitioner was before the Conciliation Officer under the State Government, the Conciliation Officer having conciliated the matter having failed the Government had referred the same for adjudication, to the Labour Court. It is in that process, at the first instance an award dated 28.05.2003 had been passed and the same being challenged before this Court had concluded in the Writ Appeal.