delhi-high-court

Analysis | Delhi HC Refuses To Interfere With Labour Court Award Reinstating A DTC Conductor Terminated For 15 Days’ Absence

What does Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hold?

Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 holistically prohibits employers from adversely altering the conditions of service of their employees involved in an industrial dispute with the employers, during the pendency of such industrial dispute proceedings.

Section 33(2) of the Act allows for the altering of service conditions of the employee involved in a pending industrial dispute with the employer, however, only in relation to a matter that is not part of the industrial dispute.

Section 33(2)(b) specifically states that the employer may dismiss or discharge such employee for any misconduct not pertaining to the pending industrial dispute. There is however a proviso, which states that firstly, the employer must move an application before the authority, before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the employer’s action to be taken against the concerned employee, and secondly, the employee will not be discharged or dismissed without being paid wages for one month.

Under what law can a Writ Court be justified in interfering in lower court matters?

Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has authority to issue writs in the form of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari, to any person or authority, including the government. Article 226 of the Constitution of India also gives the High Courts the authority to enforce any of the basic fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution of India.

Through the passing of previous judgements, the Courts have made it clear that the purpose of Article 226 is to empower the High Courts with a provision to issue writs in cases where subordinate authorities such as the subordinate courts or officers have overstepped their ambit and acted in a manner that goes beyond their jurisdiction, or in a manner that violates principles of natural justice, or refuse to exercise their jurisdiction, or the concerned authority has made an error which has resulted into causing injustice.

References:

https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/reinstatement-order-dtc-conductor-terminated-15-days-absence-1991-1504791

Comments are closed.