LexM/S. B.P.L. LTD. AND ORS. versus R. SUDHAKAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
M'S. B.P.L. LTD. ANO ORS.
v
R. SUDHAKAR AND ORS.
MAY 6. 2004
B
(SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.)
Industrial Disputtts Act, 1947 :
C
S. 3J{]J(b), proviso and s. 33-A--lndustrial dispute referred to
Industrial Tribunal-Operation of 0rder of reference stayed by High
Court-Dismissal of wo'*men during stay of operation of order of
reference-Complaint uls. 33-A-Preliminary objection by Management to
maintainability of complaint-Held, once operation ryf order of reference
D is stayed there is no dispute pending bi'ji1rc the Trihrma/ so /nng as stay
order remains in operation-Since by virtue of the interim order granted
by High Court, proceedings were nor pending on the date of dismissal of
workmen, preliminary objection raised by Companies as to very
maintainability of complaint uls. 33A is valid and sustainable.
E
Interim ordL'1"--£Jf«ct of-·Di1cus.wd
Certain disputes between the appellant-rompan~ and its workmen
were referred to the lndustri:ll Tribunal. The Union of the workmen
not satisfied with the order of reference, filed a \I rit petition before the
F High Court stekrng a mandamus to the State Go\ crnnwnt for n·fr rring
some more dbputes rai>ed In them. The Single Judge of the High
C .ourt while is,.uing notice for admission of the writ petition, by an
interim order, stayed operation of the order of reference and the said
interim order continued till the writ petition was finally disposed of.
During the pcndency of the writ petitio11 the respondent-workmen
wl'rc dismissed from service on the ground of serious misconduct. The
respondents tiled a complaint under s-33-A of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 stating that their dismissal was in contravention of s.33(2)
of the Act and, therefore, they were entitled to be reinstated. The
H preliminary objection raised by the management that when the dismissal
414
B.P.L. LTD. v. R. SUDHAKAR
415
orders were passed no proceedings were pending before the Tribunal A
as operation of the very order of reference had been stayed by the High
Court, was rejected by the Tribunal. The writ petitions and the writ
appeals filed by the companies were dismissed, Aggrieved, the
Companies filed the present appeals.
On the question : whether a dispute is said to be pending before
an Industrial Tribunal for the purpose of proviso to s.33(2)(b) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 during the period when operation of the
order of reference of dispute itself remained stayed,
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1. Once operation of the order of reference is stayed,
B
c
·-there is no question of dispute pending before the Tribunal so long as the
said order remains in operation because reference precedes dispute.
Looking to the terms of the interim order granted by the High Court D
staying the very operation of order of reference it could not be said that
dispute was pending before the Tribunal on the relevant date, viz., the
date on which the workmen were dismissed from service. It was not a
case where the dispute was pending and only further proceedings were
stayed. When the order of reference itself was stayed the Tribunal did E
not have jurisdiction to pass any further order. As such the question of
either management making an application under the proviso to Section
33(2)(b) of the In.dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 or the Tribunal passi.1g an
order on such application would not arise. In case any tribunal proceeds
to pass an order in spite of stay of the operation of the order ofreference F
by the High Court, it may amount to contempt of the order of the High
Court. In case of some grave misconduct the management cannot afford
to sit idle or simply wait to take action, particularly, when stay of the
operation of the order of reference is obtained at the instance of Union
on behalf of the workmen. [425-A-D, G]
Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India and Ors., [1994] Supp. 2 SCC 641,
relied on.
Baradakanta Mishra, Ex-Commissioner of Endowments v. Bhimsen,
G
Dixit, [1973] 2 SCR 495, referred to.
H
-116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
Shree Clwmundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Assn.,
B
tSJ Cmod S..:..:retartut, ;\4adras, [19921 2 SCR 999, distinguished.
Kunoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. and Others v. UP. State
Electridty Board and Others .. [1997) 5 SCC 772, held inapplicable.
1.2. Both sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 33 of the Act employ
the language "during the pendencyExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.