P. JANARDHANA SHETTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
P. Janardhana Shetty
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Click here to view full judgement.
CHANDRASEKHAR, J. -
(1.)THESE three petitions are similar and they raise common questions of law. They relate to the disputes arising out of termination of services of individual workmen by their respective employers who are the petitioners herein.
(2.)IN these petitions, the petitioners have asked for striking down S. 2 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). They have also impugned the conciliation proceedings pending before the Labour and Conciliation Officer. Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Conciliation Officer) in respect of such disputes.
Respondent 4 in each of these petitions whose services were terminated, preferred an appeal under S. 39 of the Mysore Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Shops and Establishments Act), before the Commissioner of Labour in Mysore (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) who is the Appellate Authority under the said Act, After S. 2 -A was inserted in the Act by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1965 (Central Act of 1965), the commissioner issued a circular (marked Exhibit III in each of these petitions) in which it was stated that a workman who is removed or dismissed from service by his employer, can get better reliefs under the provisions of the Act than under the provisions of the Shops and Establishments Act. The circular advised workmen who had preferred appeals under S. 39 of the Shops and Establishments Act to consider the desirability of withdrawing such appeals and approaching the Conciliation Officer for taking up the matter under the provisions of the Act.
(3.)RESPONDENT 4 in each of these petitions made an application for withdrawing his respective appeals preferred under S. 39 of the Shops and Establishments Act. Thereafter, the Commissioner directed the Conciliation Officer to take up the conciliation proceedings in respect of disputes between the respective employers and the employees relating to their dismissal or removal from service. Accordingly, the Conciliation Officer issued to the petitioner and respondent 4 in each of these petitions notices under S. 12(1) of the Act, read with rule 10 of the Industrial Disputes (Mysore) Rules 1957 requiring them to attend the proceedings before him. Feeling aggrieved by such notices, the petitioners have presented these petitions.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.