MEGH RAJ JAIN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The facts leading to filing of the W.P. (C) No. 529/1987 and W.P. (C) 2954/2000 are inter-connected and the parties to the aforesaid two writ petitions are same. The issues arising out of the said writ petitions, therefore, being the similar and common they were taken up for consideration on the same day and, therefore, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. However, before discussing the issues which arise for my consideration, it would be appropriate to deal with the factual matrix leading to filing of both the aforesaid writ petitions.

(2.) . The aforesaid writ petition was registered on the basis of the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned Labour Court in its order dated 30th May, 1986. The said case was registered in the Labour Court on the basis of an application filed by the petitioner under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming dues on various counts from the respondents including retrenchment compensation. By judgment and order dated 30th May, 1986 the learned Labour Court held that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and M/s. Ashoka Marketing Limited and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to payment of any dues from M/s. Ashoka Marketing Limited.. It was further held that, however, the petitioner was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1801/- only from M/s. Bharat Overseas Private Limited. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid findings and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Labour Court, the aforesaid writ petition was filed by the petitioner in this court. It is, however, to be mentioned at this stage that during the pendency of the aforesaid proceeding in the Labour Court the petitioner dropped M/s. Jaipur Udyog Limited from the array of parties although originally the said company was also & party before the .Labour Court.

(3.) The petitioner in this writ petition also approached the appropriate Government with a prayer for making reference of the dispute regarding his retrenchment of service by M/s. Bharat Overseas Private Limited. The Secretary, Labour refused to refer the said dispute as sought to be raised by the petitioner for adjudication under his order dated 30th November, 1982. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application on 6th November, 1986 praying for review of the order dated 13th November, 1982. However, in the said application filed, the Secretary, Labour made a reference on the following terms :- "Whether the retrenchment of Sh. Meghraj Jain is illegal and unjustified and, if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in the matter?