LAL BABOO SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 30th September, 1995 passed by the Labour Court-IX, Delhi whereby the Labour Court observed that the real dispute whether the closure of the respondent establishment was genuine or not OR it was an illegal lock-out as alleged by workmen, was not referred to it. Since no reference was made by the appropriate Government about closure, this dispute could not be adjudicated and the dispute of termination of workman referred, actually did not arise.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the petitioners were working with the respondent as workmen. The petitioners claimed that they were refused duty on 22nd July, 1982 on the ground that the management had declared a lock out and thereafter petitioners were not taken on duty at any time. However, in the written statement the respondent took the stand that the Tailoring Department where, the petitioners and some other workmen were employed was closed down w.e.f. 3.9.1980 and all the workmen were directed to collect their dues mentioned in the closure notice but the workmen did not collect their dues. The workmen claimed that it was a case of illegal lock out and not a case of closure. The dispute was referred to the Labour court in the following terms:

(3.) The management was proceeded ex-parte and the evidence of workmen was recorded. After considering the evidence of the workmen, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the real dispute between the parties was whether the closure of the establishment as declared by the respondent was bonafide closure or not. There was no individual termination of the services of any of the workmen but the dispute referred was in respect of termination of service. The Labour Court observed that the appropriate Government failed to take into account the real facts and referred the wrong dispute. It should have referred a dispute whether there was genuine closure or an illegal lock out. The appropriate Government itself could not have reached a final decision on the question whether it was a lock out or closure since it was a matter to be adjudicated by the industrial adjudicator, but it did not refer this dispute for adjudication and simply referred a dispute about termination of service of the petitioner. Since, there was no termination and the petitioner had become jobless due to closure of the establishment, the dispute could not be adjudicated.