JOSEPH FRANKLIN Vs. MADURA COMPANY PRIVATE LTD
LAWS(KER)-1968-12-4
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on December 04,1968

JOSEPH FRANKLIN Appellant
VERSUS
MADURA COMPANY PRIVATE LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) By this writ petition the petitioner seeks to quash the order Ext. P3 and the award Ext. P4 passed by the Labour Court, Quilon allowing the application put in by the 1st respondent company (hereinafter referred to as the management) under S.33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking its approval for the dismissal of the petitioner from the service of the 1st respondent with effect from the 29th July, 1963, and dismissing the complaint put in by the petitioner under S.33A challenging the action taken against him by the management.
(2.) The petitioner was employed as a clerk in the coir yarn factory of the 1st respondent at Palluruthy. Two separate charges of misconduct were levelled against him in respect of which two separate enquiries were conducted by the management. The petitioner was found guilty of both the charges which forms subject matter of the two enquiries and on the basis of the said conclusion of guilt he was dismissed from service with effect from the 29th July, 1963. In view, however, of the pendency of an industrial dispute, namely I.D. II of 1963 the management applied to the Labour Court for approval under S.33(2)(b) of the Act. The petitioner also simultaneously presented a complaint before the court under S.33 A alleging that the action taken against him by the management constituted a violation of S.33 of the Act.
(3.) Ext. P3 is the order passed by the Labour Court on the application put in by the management under S.33(2)(b) and Ext. P4 is its award on the complaint preferred by the petitioner under S.33A of the Act. In Ext. P3 the Labour Court has come to the conclusion, on a consideration of the materials placed before it including the oral evidence of the enquiry officers and the law officer of the management who are examined as witnesses on the side of the management and that of the petitioner who gave evidence in support of his own case, that in respect of both the charges framed against the petitioner proper enquiries had been conducted by the management giving due opportunity to the petitioner to make out his defence, that the conclusion arrived at by the management in respect of the two charges was certainly a possible conclusion and that there was nothing to show that the action taken by the management was mala fide or constituted victimisation or unfair labour practice. On the basis of these findings the Labour Court allowed the management's prayer for grant of approval under the proviso to S.33(2)(b) of the Act. Consequently, on the complaint put in by the petitioner under S.33A the Labour Court held that there had not been any contravention of S.33 of the Act and that therefore the petitioner was not entitled to any relief on the complaint put in by him.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.