SHARDENDU Vs. LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD finally. Rule D. B. The petitioner seeking recovery of his claims and dues against his employer, the Respondent No. 3, has filed this petition seeking quashing of an order of reference made under Section 17 (2) of Working Journalists And Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955.

(2.) IT appears that the petitioner was in employment of Respondent No. 3. He was transferred from Bhopal to Lucknow. There is a dispute whether the petitioner rendered any service to Respondent No. 3 after his transfer to Lucknow. The fact remains that the petitioner preferred a claim before the Labour Commissioner, Delhi. The statement of claim filed by the petitioner is to be found at pages 62 to 69 of the paper book. The petitioner has raised a claim for an amount of Rs. 1,34,000/-

(3.) BEFORE the Labour Commissioner, the Respondent No. 2 did not file any written statement. The proceedings witnessed only adjournments. On December 20,1993, in the presence of both the parties, the next date of hearing was fixed as January 17,1994 at 11. 00 A. M. Surprisingly, the matter was taken up by the Labour Commissioner on December 29, 1993 and he passed the following order :