State Labour Court Can Entertain Industrial Dispute Involving Central Govt-Controlled Bank Employee: AP High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a workman can approach a State Government-constituted Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, when the industrial dispute arises within the Tribunal's territorial jurisdiction.In doing so, the Court set aside an order of the Labour Court, Guntur, which had refused to entertain the dispute on...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a workman can approach a State Government-constituted Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, when the industrial dispute arises within the Tribunal's territorial jurisdiction.
In doing so, the Court set aside an order of the Labour Court, Guntur, which had refused to entertain the dispute on the ground that the Central Government was the appropriate Government for the bank and, therefore, the dispute ought to have been brought before a Labour Court constituted by the Central Government.
Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 permits a workman aggrieved by dismissal, discharge, retrenchment or termination to approach the Labour Court directly, without requiring a prior reference by the appropriate Government.
Accepting the maintainability of the petition, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Balaji Medamalli observed:
... this Court is of the view that, since the dispute arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guntur, and having regard to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the application filed by the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal constituted by the State Government is maintainable. Consequently, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the dispute. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.02.2021 passed in Industrial Dispute No.24 of 2013 by the Chairman, Industrial Tribunal – cum – Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur, and notified vide G.O.Rt.No. 118, dated 22.04.2021, issued by the Labour, Factories, Boilers and Insurance Medical Services (OP) Department, is set aside, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute.”
The dispute arose from the removal of the petitioner from service of the erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad. She had joined the bank in 2004 as a Sweeper-cum-Lunch Room Attendant (SWLRA).
After working for about three years on nominal wages, she was subsequently regularised as a one-third SWLRA in the Sub-Staff pay scale, i.e., in the Class IV category. Her duties included sweeping the bank premises, carrying files and serving tea and snacks to the staff.
In 2012, the bank issued her a notice alleging that she had secured employment through unethical means. During verification of her antecedents, the matter was referred to the police, which reported that the Transfer Certificate produced by her, purportedly issued by Mahatma Gandhi Memorial School, was not genuine.
The petitioner denied the allegation and submitted her explanation. A disciplinary enquiry was thereafter conducted. She contended that her explanation was not properly considered and that the documents and material collected during the verification were not furnished to her, in violation of the principles of natural justice. Based on the enquiry report, the bank removed her from service.
Aggrieved by her removal, she approached the Labour Court. However, the Labour Court declined to adjudicate the dispute on merits, holding that the Central Government was the appropriate Government in respect of the bank, whereas the Labour Court had been constituted by the State Government. It therefore returned the dispute for presentation before the appropriate forum.
Challenging this order, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Before the High Court, she contended that Section 2-A(2) provided her a direct remedy before the Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and that the dispute could be adjudicated by the Tribunal within whose territorial jurisdiction the establishment was situated.
The respondents, on the other hand, maintained that since the bank was under the control of the Central Government, the petitioner was required to approach a Labour Court constituted by the Central Government.
The High Court rejected the objection to the jurisdiction of the State Government-constituted Tribunal.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Vijaya Bank v. Shyamal Kumar Lod (2010), the Court held that the petitioner's application before the State Government-constituted Tribunal was maintainable, as the dispute arose within its territorial jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the Labour Court's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration and disposal on merits in accordance with law.
The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the petitioner's challenge to her removal.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed.
Case Title: Chennupalli Seetha v. State Bank of Hyderabad & Others
Case No.: W.P. No. 1327 of 2023
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M. Pitchaiah
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri C. Srinivasa Baba