SH. SACHIDANAND SHARMA S/O. SH. GIRDHARI LAL SHARMA Vs. SH. P.K. JAIN AND ORS., PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal, has filed this writ petition. The Industrial Tribunal in view of the award dated 25.1.90 on a reference from the appropriate Government held that the term of reference was capable of only a negative answer. It was further held that the Industrial Tribunal could not create a new term of reference and is bound to limit the adjudication to the term of reference. It was held in the award that in view of the provision of Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970, the decision of the Labour Commissioner in terms of the said Act and pursuant to the authority of Supreme Court in Canon India Ltd., 1974, Lic 707, shall be final and in view of : (1971)IILLJ567SC , reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1974 cannot be made in respect of contract labour after enforcement of Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970.

(2.) UNFORTUNATELY , workmen did not challenge the award but choose to file application under Section 33 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act. That application was dismissed.

(3.) MR . Sabharwal has contended that the dispute raised by the petitioner against the management was industrial dispute as defined under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1974. Another contention of the counsel for the petitioner was that the services of the petitioner were terminated during the pendency of the proceedings in relation to the said industrial dispute which could not have been done without taking requisite approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was further contended by Mr. Sabharwal that the expression used in Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act is "During the pendency of any proceedings in respect of an Industrial Dispute". The proceedings referred to in the above expression means de facto proceedings. It does not mean that if the reference is not valid then pendency of such proceedings under an invalid reference order was not treated as covered in the above expression and in this context the object of the said provision has to be kept in view. Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has cited the authority of Supreme Court in Raja Kulkarni and Ors. v. State of Bombay,, i LLJ 1954 .