1. The writ-petitioner herein filed a petition under S. 2-A(2) — 1 of the Industrial Disputes Act challenging the order of termination on 36 November, 1980. The lower Tribunal, that is R 3 herein, dismissed the said application by holding that S. 2 A(2) which had come into effect from 27 July, 1987, is prospective and it cannot be invoked for challenging the order of dismissal, removal or discharge which was passed prior to 27 July, 1987. The correctness of the said view is challenged in this writ petition.
2. Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was incorporated by the Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act 34 of 1987. It is evident from S. 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act that workman who was dismissed, removed or discharged from service can challenge the same by filing an application under S. 2-A(2) before the concerned Labour Court and it need not be referred to under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no period of limitation for challenging the order of dismissal, removal or discharge, under Industrial Disputes Act. It is neither expressly stated nor it can be stated by implication that S. 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be invoked to challenge the order of dismissal, etc., which was issued prior to 27 July, 1987. The lower Court relied upon the decisions in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel [1985— II L.L.N 488] and M.M Wagh v. State of Maharashtra [1992 — I L.L.N 763], in support of its finding that S. 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable to challenge the order of dismissal, etc., that was passed prior to 27 July, 1987. The latter judgment is a judgment of the Bombay High Court. It merely refers to the scope of S. 34(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is not helpful in considering as to whether an application under S. 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act can be filed to challenge the order of dismissal, etc., of the date prior to 27 July, 1987. The judgment of the Supreme Court starts at page 488 in 1985— II L.L.N and does not throw any light for considering this aspect.
3. As admittedly there is no period of limitation for challenging the order of dismissal, etc., before the forum constituted under Industrial Disputes Act, and by incorporation of S. 2-A(2), the workman is given a right to directly approach the Labour Court to ventilate his grievance in case of dismissal, removal or discharge instead of moving the State Government for reference, and as there are no express words in S. 2-A(2) nor it can be construed by implication that S. 2-A(2) cannot be invoked in regard the order of dismissal, etc., which was passed prior to the date of incorporation of S. 2-A(2), it has to be held that it can be invoked to challenge even the order of dismissal, etc., of the dale earlier to 27 July, 1987, the dale on which Andhra Pradesh Act 34 of 1987 had come into effect. The delay in challenging the order of termination can be taken into consideration for moulding the relief if the Court finds that the order of termination is illegal, that is, it can disallow back-wages from the date of alleged termination till the date of filing of the petition. Hence, the impugned order of R 3 has to be held as illegal and the same has to be set aside. The matter is remanded back to the lower Court, that is, the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, for restoring the industrial dispute and for disposing of the same in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Comments