The Divisional Controller, NEKRTC, Raichur Division vs Sugappa

S. Abdul Nazeer, J.—This writ petition is directed against the award in KID No. 165/2009 dated 11.11.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gulbarga. The respondent had been working with the petitioner Corporation as a Conductor. Disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him and it was alleged that he had neither issued tickets nor collected fare from three passengers. After holding an enquiry, the Corporation dismissed him from service on 30.6.2009. The respondent challenged the said order by filing a claim petition before the Labour Court in KID No. 165/2009. The Labour Court by its order at Annexure-B dated 11.11.2010 has set aside the order of dismissal of the Corporation and directed the Corporation to reinstate the workman into service by withholding one future annual increment, without any back wages.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

It is not in dispute that an industrial dispute relating to charter of demands in I.D. No. 148/2005 in which the workman is concerned is pending before the Industrial Tribunal at Bangalore. The workman was dismissed from service during the pendency of the said dispute. It is also not in dispute that the Corporation has not complied with the statutory requirements contained in the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ''the Act'') before passing the order of dismissal. Thus, the order of dismissal is void and inoperative.

In North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sadashiv (W.P. No. 63003/2011 disposed of on 7.8.2012), this Court has considered an identical matter. Relying on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and Others, and the decision of this Court in Sanjay and Others v. The Management of NWKRTC in W.P. No. 65378/2011 and other connected matters disposed of on 26.6.2012, it was held that the termination of the workman from service without compliance of the statutory requirements contained in the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Act is void and inoperative.

In M.M. Narayana and Others v. The Management of KSRTC (W.P. Nos. 24118-120/2009 and other connected matters disposed of on 13.7.2012), this Court has held that an order of discharge or dismissal passed against a workman without obtaining approval u/s 33(2)(b) would be non est. If the management/employer does not seek approval of the Board, Arbitrator, Court/Tribunal, etc., as required u/s 33(2)(b) on the ground that such aggrieved workman has a remedy u/s 33A of the Act, it would not validate such order of discharge or dismissal and in such cases, order of discharge or dismissal would be non est and void. In my view, the order impugned does not call for interference. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.