KRISHNA BUS SERVICE PVT LTD Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN exercise of the powers conferred under Section 10 (l) (c)and 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act read with the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs' Notification No. 2/2/61-Judl. 11 dated 24th March, 1961 Delhi Administration by an order dated 4th May, 1967 referred an industrial dispute of a workman Shri Ujagar Singh (respondent No. 3 herein) for adjudication to Shri V. P. Aggarwal, the then Presiding Officer of the Labour Court.

(2.) THE petitioner is a private limited company and respondent No. 3ujagar Singh was employed to work as Conductor with the petitioner-company. It is alleged in the petition that respondent No. 3 committed certain acts of misconduct and, therefore, an inquiry was ordered to be instituted against him and on receipt or the Inquiry Report the petitioner-company decided to dismiss the petitioner from service. Since the conciliation failed, the Conciliation Officer submitted his report under Section 12 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Delhi Administration on the basis of which the above reference was made. The term of Reference reads thus:-"whether the dismissal of Shri Ujagar Singh, Conductor is wrongful and unjustified and if so, to what relief, if any, is he entitled?" Notices were served on parties by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court. The workman filed his statement of claim and the Management filed its written statement. The Labour Court framed issues and fixed : the case for evidence of the parties. Thereafter, the petitioner-company herein filed its amended written statement and supplementary written statement and supplementary written statement and the Labour Court, therefore, framed two additional issues. The Labour Court decided in favour of the workman on issue No. 1/a and held that the Reference cannot be treated as invalid for want of demand by the workman as demand was actually made by the workman on the Management. The objection of the petitioner-company regarding the competence of the Lt. Governor to exercise the power of appropriate Government by virtue of notification made by the Government of India No. 2/2/61-Judl. II, dated 24th March, 1961 was also rejected in view of the judgment of this Court in C. W. No. 254 of 1970 Fedders Lloyeds v. Lt. Governor, Delhi decided on 27. 7. 1970 where it was held that the Lt. Governor, Delhi is fully competent by virtue of delegation made by the President to exercise the powers of appropriate Government.

(3.) THE main argument of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that the order of Reference passed by the Delhi Administration was illegal and invalid since there is no order in the hand or under the signatures of the Lt. Governor who is purported to have been delegated with the powers of the State Government by the President of India under Article 239 of the Constitution of India qua the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court after having discussed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Management came to the conclusion that from the record it is evident that the Lt. Governor was satisfied that the dispute should be referred to the Labour Court. The argument made on behalf of the Management that the order of Reference which was signed by the Under Secretary is not the order of Lt. Governor of Delhi and, therefore, it was invalid, was also rejected. The Labour Court held that the order making reference is an administrative order and not a judicial or quasi judicial order and since it was written under the instructions and on behalf of the Lt. Governor by his Secretary, it satisfied the requirement of being an order in writing by the appropriate Government making the Reference.