Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1229 (MP)

Kamlesh Sharma v. Divisional Manager

2010-12-14

RAJENDRA MENON

body2010
ORDER Rajendra Menon, J. 1. Petitioner is a dismissed Conductor in the Respondents establishment and has challenged the disciplinary proceedings initiated and dismissal from service on various grounds particularly pertaining to violation of Standard Standing Orders formulated under the M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. Petitioner is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act and has efficacious remedy of raising the dispute under Section 2(A) of Industrial Disputes Act and by intervention of the Labour Court. Wide powers are conferred on the Labour Court to go into the punishment also and in view of the provisions of Section 11(A) of Industrial Disputes Act, Labour Court has full jurisdiction to enquire into factual aspects of the matter including the validity of departmental enquiry conducted and the quantum of punishment. 2. The Karnataka High Court in the case of Mohini v. General Manager, Syndicate Bank- 1995(I) LLJ 351 (karn.) has laid down a principle that when efficacious remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act is available and when benefit of Section 11(A) can be availed of, interference directly by a writ Court is not warranted. 3. In the case of Mohini (supra) it has been so held by the learned Court: Whether the Tribunal is dealing with an industrial dispute, if it is satisfied that no enquiry has been held or that enquiry held is not fair and proper, or the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry are perverse, the whole issue is at large before the Tribunal. As a corollary, it follows that the power and jurisdiction of the Labour Court in examining the validity of the domestic enquiry far exceeds that of the writ court as it cannot go beyond the point of examining the validity of the enquiry to look into the merits of the charges framed against the employee. To that extent, therefore, the remedy provided by the Act is certainly more comprehensive than that available under Article 226 of the Constitution. The power under Section 11 -A of the Act is also peculiar to the scheme of the Act and may not be exercisable under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. Keeping in view the aforesaid and finding the efficacious alternate remedy available to the Petitioner, the preliminary objection raised by the Respondents in this regard is upheld. 5. The power under Section 11 -A of the Act is also peculiar to the scheme of the Act and may not be exercisable under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. Keeping in view the aforesaid and finding the efficacious alternate remedy available to the Petitioner, the preliminary objection raised by the Respondents in this regard is upheld. 5. Petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to take recourse of the remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. Petition is accordingly disposed of.