B. NARAYANAPPA Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, BANGALORE AND THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a Conductor in the respondent Road Transport Corporation, when terminated from service by order dated 14 -9 -2005 led to the filing of the petition under Sec. 10(4)(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 registered as I.D. 119/2005 on the file of 1st Additional. Labour Court, Bangalore whence by award dated 3 -11 -2007 the termination was upheld whereafter wards the petitioner filed W.P. 37355/09 and learned Single Judge by order dated 23 -11 -2010, Annexure -A, rejected the petition and confirmed the award. It appears, there afterwards, the petitioner filed a complaint under Sec. 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 registered as complaint No. 3/12 before the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore complaining that respondent did not secure the approval of the Tribunal in the pending industrial dispute, in which the petitioner was a concerned workman, whence the Industrial Tribunal by order dated 14 -9 -2012 allowed the complaint, declared non est the order of dismissal following which respondent No. 5 filed W.P. 2506/13. The learned Single Judge by order dated 23 -11 -2010 in the face of the consent extended by workman, arraigned as respondent therein, permitted the workman to withdraw the complaint under Sec. 33A of the Act with liberty to file review petition in W.P. 37355/2009 or file an appeal against the order dated 23 -11 -2010 dismissing the petition or seek liberty to make a fresh complaint under Sec. 33A of the Act, without going into the merits and demerits of the claims of the parties. Hence this petition to review the order dated 23 -11 -2010.

(2.) REGARD being had to the admitted fact that petitioner an ex -conductor of Road Transport Corporation is terminated from service without the approval of the Industrial Tribunal before whom I.D. 119/2005 in which the petitioner was the concerned workman was pending applying the observations of the Constitutional Bench decision in Jaipur Zila S.B.V. Bank Limited vs. R.G. Sharma : LLJ, 2002(1) 834 the order of dismissal is held to be non est. Apparently, such contention was neither canvassed nor a submission made before the learned Single Judge when the order Annexure -A was passed.