MAYA EXPORT CORPORATION Vs. SECRETARY LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent of Counsel for the parties the case is taken up for final arguments and disposal. The Petitioner has impugned the Order of Respondent No.1 passed on 21.12.2000 referring the following disputes to adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal-III:-

(2.) It has been argued by Mr. Bhandari, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, that it was incumbent on the Administration that the entire dispute between the Petitioner and the workmen should have been referred for adjudication. Respondent No.1, however, has only referred the question of the entitlement of the workmen to wages with effect from 1.12.2000 onwards without .simultaneously referring the legal propriety of the Lockout for adjudication. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Eagle .Fashions Delhi. vs. Secretary (Labour) Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, New Delhi and Others, 1998 (1) L.L.N. 269, in which it has been observed as follows:

(3.) Mr. Bhandari has also garpered support for his contentions from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Administration vs. Workmen of Edward Keventers and another, 1978 II LLJ 209. In that case also powers conferred under Sub-Section (3) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act has sought to be exercised for predicating an order prohibiting the continuance of the Lockout. Since the legality of the Lockout has not been referred to adjudication, on the strength of observations made in Edward Keventers's case (supra), it would not be open to the Respondents to exercise powers under Section 10(3) of the Act since this question had not been'made the subject matter of the Reference under Section 10(1).