The Karnataka High Court in the case titled Karnataka State Medical v Astra Zeneca Pharma India Ltd. comprising of single Judge Bench Jyoti Mulimani reiterated that Industrial Adjudicator is not vested with inherent power & cannot travel beyond the prayer made in application.
Brief Facts
The respondent/Co. - Management works in the pharmaceutical industry, which has a stellar reputation around the world. It is claimed that the second petitioner's performance has been deemed unsatisfactory since January 2006. He was inefficient at work & made no attempt to improve his efficiency despite being given ample opportunities to do so. While the second petitioner acknowledged his low performance, he only offered irrelevant & unrelated reasons as an alibi. There was no discernible improvement. As a result, he was served with a charge sheet.
The second petitioner filed an application under the I.D. Act's section 10 (4-A). The Labour Court adjudicated the dispute & ultimately dismissed the reference. Under these circumstances, the petitioners having left with no other of alternative & efficacious remedy have filed this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Labour Court on various grounds.
Contention Made
Petitioner: That the order of the Labour Court is perverse, arbitrary & illegal. The respondent Co. - Management ought to have filed an application under Section 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 seeking post facto approval of order of termination. Since the mandatory statutory provision has not been complied with by the respondent/C0. - Management, the dismissal is non-est in the eye of law & hence the second petitioner is entitled for reinstatement along with full back wages, continuity of service & consequential benefits. All of this leads to discrimination & violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India & the second petitioner is deprived of legitimate expectation of better service conditions. Hence, the order of the Labour Court is unsustainable in law.
Respondent: The standard of proof required to prove the charges in the Labour Court is preponderance of probabilities. It is submitted that when an application is filed under Section 10 (4-A) of the I.D Act (Karnataka Amendment 1987), the Labour Court would get jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute in the same manner as a dispute referred to by the Government for adjudication. Section 33(2)(b) of the Act is only an afterthought. No such contention was taken before the Labour Court. There is no evidence to this effect. Hence, it is not open for the petitioners to urge the ground which has not been taken up before the Labour Court. However, the allegation of discrimination and equality is not available to the workman in the matter of disciplinary proceedings. The second petitioner has accepted the appointment order hence, legitimate expectation is not applicable. The scope of judicial review is limited. The finding of the Labour Court is in clear appreciation of evidence on record followed by detailed reasoning’s. Hence, there are no valid grounds warranting the interference by this Court in the well-considered Award passed by the Labour Court.
Court Observation
The pleadings must set-forth sufficient factual details to the extent it reduces the ability to put forward a false or exaggerated claim or defense. The concept of equality enriched in Article 14 is a positive concept & not a negative concept. The burden of showing that the discrimination is apparent and manifest is upon the person who impeaches the law as a violation of the guarantee of equal protection. The allegation must be specific, clear and unambiguous & must give particulars. It is perhaps well to observe that legitimate expectation does not mean illegitimate flight of fancy.
Court Judgment
HC Held- The law is well settled that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court Industrial Tribunal in Industrial disputes are limited to the points specifically referred for its adjudication & matters incidental thereto & it is not permissible to go beyond the terms of the reference.
That the allegation of discrimination and equality is not available to the workman in the matter of disciplinary proceedings. Lastly Court held that the settled position of law is that in writ jurisdiction is the present case does not illustrate the circumstances in which it would be appropriate to subject a decision of an Industrial Adjudicator to judicial review. Hence, the Labour Court is very well supported by both oral and documentary evidence on record. The order does not require any interference by this Court.
As a result writ petition dismissed.
Case: Karnataka State Medical v Astra Zeneca Pharma India Ltd
Citation: W.P. No. 8568 of 2013
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
Decided: 12th May, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
