DIVISIONAL MANAGER SYNDICATE BANK Vs. ASSISTANT SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The management in I.D. No. 172/2006 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam, is the petitioner herein. He is challenging Ext. P-1 award of the said authority in this writ petition. The Industrial dispute was originally numbered as I.D. No. 52/1998 of the Labour Court, Ernakulam and, on constitution of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam, the I.D. was made over to the latter Court, who renumbered the same as I.D. No. 172/2006 and adjudicated the same passing Ext. P-1 award.

(2.) The petitioner raises two grounds. The first is that insofar as the Disabilities Act provides for a machinery for considering the claims of employees under the Disabilities Act, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act is impliedly excluded by the provisions of the Disabilities Act. The second is that it is settled law that the Labour Court cannot travel beyond the scope of the issue referred for adjudication. It is submitted that the question as to whether the workman was entitled to the benefits of section 47 of the Disabilities Act, was not an issue referred for adjudication and, therefore, that question was beyond the scope of the reference and as such, the Labour Court travelled beyond the scope of the reference and hence the award is patently illegal and unsustainable. In support of that contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the following decisions:

(3.) In answer to the same, the learned Counsel for the Union submits that in the Disabilities Act, there is no exclusion of jurisdiction of the Labour Court. According to him, the Disabilities Act does not provide for an adjudicatory mechanism for adjudicating rights of persons afflicted with disabilities, but only provides for the Chief Commissioner appointed under the Act to look into the complaints with respect to the matters relating to deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities and non-implementation of laws, rules etc, issued by the appropriate Governments and the local authorities for the welfare and protection or rights of persons with disabilities and to take up the matter with the appropriate authorities. That is not an effective mechanism, whereby the Chief Commissioner can grant reliefs to persons who have been deprived of their rights under the Disabilities Act. He further points out that under section 72 of the Disabilities Act, it has been expressly made clear that the Disabilities Act is in addition to and not in derogation of any other law. Therefore, according to him, the Disabilities Act does not exclude the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act in any manner whatsoever and, therefore, it was perfectly within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to adjudicate the industrial dispute raised by the workman involved.