A.K. CORPORATION PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE
LAWS(CAL)-1976-12-30
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on December 03,1976

A.K. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

MANAGING DIRECTOR, RSRTC VS. MOHAN SINGH BAGHALA [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-11-125] [REFERRED TO]
P. MURUGESAN VS. THE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL HORTICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2019-11-1072] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

A.K. Mookerjee, J. - (1.)This Rule is directed against an order No. 25 dated May 17, 1973, passed by the learned Judge, Second Labour Court, dismissing the Petitioner's application under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on the ground that the proviso to the said Sec. had not been complied with.
(2.)The Respondent No. 3 Gangeswar Ojha was a peon under the employment of the Petitioner's company. The said Respondent, the workman, was charges -sheeted for his indecent behaviour. There was a domestic enquiry. He was found guilty of the charges levelled against him and thereafter, he was dismissed from service by a letter ' dated December 29, 1971. An industrial dispute with respect to an individual workman referred to under Sec. 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act was pending adjudication before the Second Labour Court, West Bengal. By way of abundant precaution the Petitioner filed an application under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Act before the said Second Labour Court praying for approval of the Petitioner's action in dismissing the workman. At the same time the Petitioner company raised a preliminary objection before the Labour Court that as the Respondent No. 3 was not a. 'workman concerned' in the dispute referred to the Industrial Tribunal under Sec. 2A of the Act, provisions of Sec. 33(2)(b) were not applicable and as such, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the said application. The learned Judge of the Labour Court was of opinion that by deeming provision of Sec. 2A of the Act an individual dispute was actually converted to an industrial dispute within the meaning of Sec. 2(k) of the Act. In fact, without the aid of Sec. 2A an individual dispute could be converted into an industrial dispute when it was sponsored by a number of workmen or the Union representing a Sec. of the workmen. According to him, the workman could be treated as 'concerned workman' within the meaning of Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Act, although the original dispute was under Sec. 2A of the Act.
(3.)Mr. Chakravarti, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner company, contended that an individual dispute with regard to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment and/or termination of service was deemed to be an industrial dispute by the deeming provisions contained in Sec. 2A of the Act. But, even then such deeming provision did not affect or concern, other workmen of the employer and as such, termination of service of some other workman during the pendency of an adjudication proceeding of an industrial dispute as defined in Sec. 2A of the Act did not attract the provisions of Sec. 33(2)(b).
;


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