BISUNDHARI SINGH Vs. DHILLON TRANSPORT AGENCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have assailed the impugned award dated 15. 01. 2008 passed by the learned Labour Court No. XII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in ID no. 221/2006/2005 whereby it was held that the workmen are not entitled to any relief in terms of reference order at Delhi for want of jurisdiction; and that they are however entitled to raise the Industrial Dispute against the management after joining duty at their place of transfer, if they so desire. The petitioners have categorically prayed for the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages and other legal benefits.

(2.) THE petitioners/workmen allege that they started working with the respondent on various dates between 1971-1998, but the management did not issue any appointment letters to them and had also given wrong dates of appointment in their ESI Cards. Since 2003, disputes arose between the petitioners and the respondent regarding non-payment of bonus, earned leave etc. Ultimately on 02. 04. 2005, petitioners/workmen were not allowed to carry out their jobs and were told by the management that they have been transferred, on which a complaint was sent to SHO, Sadar Bazaar on 04. 04. 2005. A demand notice dated 4. 04. 2005 was also issued by the petitioners/workmen to the management, but no reply was given by the management. On 07. 04. 2005, a complaint was sent to the labour Commissioner, Rajpur Road, but no settlement could be arrived at between the parties. Consequently, the Secretary (Labour) Government of NCT, Delhi sent a reference on 28. 11. 2005 vide reference No. F. 24 (1715)/2005-Lab/11596-600 with following terms :-

(3.) BEFORE the Labour Court it was contented by the petitioners/workmen that as they were residing in Delhi, the management business is in Delhi, jobs were also granted in Delhi and the complaints were also made to the Labour commissioner, Rajpur Road, Delhi, therefore the Labour Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain their claim. On merits it was submitted that they never refused to join the duties and that it was the management who did not allow them to join. In its written statement before the Labour Court, the management averred that the petitioners were on a transferable jobs and no discharge/ dismissed/ terminal/ retrenchment had been made and the petitioners/workmen were transferred to different branch offices of the management firm, situated in different States for administrative reasons but the petitioners did not join at their new postings. The management also averred that the transfers were made in view of the provisions contained in the Employment rules and Regulations of their firm. It is also submitted that as the new place of postings of petitioners was not at New Delhi, territorial jurisdiction of the authorities constituted by the State Government of Delhi under the provisions of the Act does not arise at all. In their rejoinder the workmen denied the allegations made by the management. The Labour Court framed the following issues :