P&H HC Dismisses Fired Auto-Parts Worker’s Writ, Leaving Inquiry And Victimisation Claims Open For Labour Court

The petitioner, a permanent workman of respondent-management, was dismissed after a domestic inquiry into alleged workplace assault and abuse.

The management obtained approval of the dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The petitioner challenged the inquiry and dismissal, alleging that he had not received a fair opportunity to participate or cross-examine a witness, and also alleging victimisation and breach of a tripartite settlement.

He sought writ relief against the Labour Commissioner’s approval order and the underlying inquiry and dismissal orders.

The High Court considered whether to entertain the petition or direct the petitioner to the statutory remedy under Section 2A of the Act.

Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 confers a limited approval jurisdiction, principally concerning the fairness of the domestic inquiry, whether a prima facie case for dismissal exists, and compliance with the statutory conditions; approval does not comprehensively determine every challenge to the dismissal.

Under Section 2A, an individual workman’s discharge or dismissal is deemed an industrial dispute, and the workman may apply directly to the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal after the prescribed conciliation period, subject to the statutory limitation period.

The availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to Article 226 jurisdiction, but writ intervention is ordinarily declined where an effective statutory remedy exists, particularly when disputed facts require evidentiary assessment; the recognised exceptions include those identified in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1.

The petitioner’s claims about notice of inquiry dates, the opportunity to participate, cross-examination, victimisation, and the effect of the settlement were disputed and required examination of the inquiry record and evidence.

Although the petitioner alleged a natural-justice violation, he had contested the approval proceedings before the Labour Commissioner, and the central factual disputes could be fully examined in industrial adjudication.

Section 2A provided a forum capable of considering the validity of the inquiry, victimisation, the settlement, and the legality and proportionality of the dismissal.

The Court found no exceptional circumstance justifying writ intervention instead of that remedy.

It expressed no opinion on the merits and left all factual and legal questions open for independent determination by the competent forum.