NATIONAL SMALL INDUSRTIES Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kovid Bhatt. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Yogesh Pandey, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2.

(2.) At that time, when the writ petition was entertained, an interim order was passed staying the award subject to the condition that the Petitioner would reinstate the workman. It is alleged that inspite of the interim order, the Petitioner did not reinstate the Respondent No. 2 and an application to that effect was moved by the workman, which remained pending.

(3.) The learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent No. 2 was employed as a Commercial Trainee, therefore, he was not a workman as defined under Section 2(z) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further, the Petitioner is a central organization and, consequently, it was only the Central Government, which could have referred a dispute for adjudication and that the State Government had no power to issue a reference. The learned Counsel submitted that specific averments were made in paragraph No. 4 of the written statement, inspite of which, the Labour Court neither framed the said issue as a preliminary issue nor has given any finding while deciding the matter.