INDIA HANDLOOM EMPORIUM Vs. RANJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to challenge the award dated 5. 7. 2008.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner states that the tribunal has not given any finding on the Issue no. 1 which deals with the crucial question as to whether or not the respondent is covered under the definition of Section 2 (s) of I. D. Act.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the said issue is a legal issue and no finding has been returned by the Tribunal. Giving explanation for the non-appearance of the petitioner management before the tribunal, the counsel submits that the petitioner is a partnership firm and the main partner Mr. Banarasi Lal was not keeping well and therefore, he could not ensure appearance on behalf of the petitioner management. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the various medical certificates showing the medical condition of the said partner of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner thus states that considering all these circumstances the matter may be remanded back to the tribunal for fresh consideration so as to decide the said issue which goes to the root of very jurisdiction of industrial tribunal/labour court. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that only four employees were employed by the petitioner and therefore, the provisions of I. D. Act could not have been attracted in the facts of the present case.