Skip to content


The Management, Udipi Hindu Restaurant Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1970)2MLJ492
AppellantThe Management, Udipi Hindu Restaurant
RespondentThe Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Cases ReferredIn B. Kalyanasundara v. Labour Court
Excerpt:
- .....9th april, 1966, the second respondent applied to the labour court under section 39-c (2) of the industrial disputes act for computation of the benefits due to him and the labour court has held that a sum of rs. 74-25 is payable to him. this writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the labour court.2. the point taken by the petitioner is that when once an employee has been either suspended or removed from service, such action might give rise to an industrial dispute which may be appropriately tried, but there can be no question of the benefits due to him to be computed under section 33-c (2). in central bank of india v. rajagopalan (1963) 2 l.l.j. 89 , the supreme court observed as follows:if an employee is dismissed or demoted and it is his case that the dismissal or.....
Judgment:
ORDER

A. Alagiriswami, J.

1. The second respondent was working as a server under the petitioner. On 3rd June, 1965, he was suspended from service pending enquiry. An enquiry was held on 23rd June, 1965 and the second respondent was dismissed from service with effect from 30th June, 1965. On 9th April, 1966, the second respondent applied to the Labour Court under Section 39-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for computation of the benefits due to him and the Labour Court has held that a sum of Rs. 74-25 is payable to him. This writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the Labour Court.

2. The point taken by the petitioner is that when once an employee has been either suspended or removed from service, such action might give rise to an industrial dispute which may be appropriately tried, but there can be no question of the benefits due to him to be computed under Section 33-C (2). In Central Bank of India v. Rajagopalan (1963) 2 L.L.J. 89 , the Supreme Court observed as follows:

If an employee is dismissed or demoted and it is his case that the dismissal or demotion is wrongful, it would not be open to him to make a claim for the recovery of his salary or wage under Section 33-C (2). His demotion or dismissal may give rise to an industrial dispute which may be appropriately tried, but once it is shown that the employer has dismissed or demoted him, a claim that the dismissal or demotion is unlawful and, therefore, the employee continues to be the workman of the employer and is entitled to the benefits due to him under a pre-existing contract, cannot be made under Section 33-C (2).

3. This decision was brought to the notice of the Labour Court, but it considered that it was not concerned with a question of dismissal but only with a case of the benefits due to the second respondent during the period of his suspension and that therefore that decision did not apply. This is not correct. Suspension is suspension of the contract of service and therefore it does not stand on a different footing from the termination of contract of service. In B. Kalyanasundara v. Labour Court, Madras (1965) 29 F.L.R. 24, Srinivasan, J. held:

Even the suspension of a workman amounts to non-employment of the workman and an industrial dispute can be raised in regard to such a non-employment which is alleged to be devoid of any valid reasons. In order to acquire the character of an ' industrial dispute,' it is not necessary that an allegation of victimisation should form the foundation of the dispute. Victimisation may be alleged in proper cases, but it is not a necessary incident to each and every industrial dispute which an employee raises against the employer.

4. This would show that suspension also is a matter which can be made the subject matter of an industrial dispute in respect of which resort under Section 33-C (2) would not be open to the suspended employee. It may also be noticed here that the dismissal of the second respondent, was itself before the Labour Court subsequently and the Labour Court set aside the order of the petitioner terminating the the services of the second respondent. A writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the Labour Court has since been allowed. It follows, therefore, that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to go into the question of the benefits payable to the second respondent and the order of the Labour Court is liable to be set aside on that ground. This writ petition is allowed and the order of the Labour Court is quashed. As neither of the respondents have appeared before this Court, there will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //