BLUE STAR LIMITED Vs. S KALYANKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsels for the parties. Rule. Shri Mayank Desai with Shri Nilesh M Shah waives service of notice of rule for respondent. With the consent of the counsels for the parties rule is fixed forthwith.

(2.) THE petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has assailed the order and award passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCV) No. 271/1998 dated 10/3/2005, and the order rejecting restoration application being Misc. Application No. 112 of 2005 passed on 11/1/2007; on the ground that the Labour Court has not passed the award strictly in consonance with law and, therefore, they are perverse and as such deserve to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) THE respondent-workman herein above had to raise industrial dispute on his termination from the service. The competent authority referred the same to the Labour Court for adjudication, which came to be numbered as Reference (LCV) 271/1998. The statement of claims came to be filed by the respondent workman and the written statement also came to be filed on behalf of the employer taking up various contentions including that of non-maintainability of the reference in view of the contention that the respondent was not a "workman", so as to invoke the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, and in alternative submission that the workman having resigned voluntarily and accepting the ensuing monetary benefits could not have raised the industrial dispute and the very reference was liable to be rejected.