TEK CHAND Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 5th October, 1971, Annexure T, passed by the Labour Court, Delhi, Respondent 1, whereby the Labour Court held that in view of the denial of management about the petitioner's status as a workman the claim of the petitioner could not be tried by the Labour Court for want of jurisdiction as the disputed question about the status of the petitioner as a workman could not be gone into by the Labour Court. The petitioner who was employed as bus driver by respondent No. 2 was placed under suspension from 22nd July, 1966 to 31st January, 1967, pending a domestic enquiry. For this period a sum of Rs. 763. 32 was deducted by respondent No. 2 out of the wages of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application dated the 12th February, '970, Annexure 'a', along with which he filed a copy of the statement showing the benefits to which he was entitled. Respondent No. 2 in its reply dated 16th April, 1970, Annexure 'c', amongst other grounds, contested the application on the ground that the claim of the petitioner was outside the scope of Section 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') and as such the Labour Court was not competent to entertain the application. The petitioner filed replication, Annexure 'd', and averred Shri Tek Chand vs. The Labour Court and Ors. (21. 11. 1972 -DELHC) Page 2 of 6 (21. 11. 1972 -DELHC) Page 2 of 6 that the application was maintainable. However, the management of respondent No. 2 by application dated 4th September, 1970, Annexure 'e', took objection to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court on the ground that the petitioner was not a workman as denned under Section 2 (s) of the Act with a prayer that the objection be treated as preliminary objection and the management be permitted to amend and add the said objection in its written statement.

(2.) THE respondent No. 2 was allowed to amend the written statement. Accordingly, respondent No. 2 filed amended written statement, Annexure 'f' to the petition. The petitioner filed replication, Annexure 'g', to the amended written statement of the respondent No. 2.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the applicant is a workman ? (2) Whether application is not legally maintainable ? (3) Whether the applicant is entitled to any of the benefits?