SARABHAI M CHEMICALS LTD Vs. RAJNIKANT V SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Advocate Mr. Kunal Nanavati for Nanavati associates for the petitioner.

(2.) THROUGH this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of india, petitioner is challenging the order below Exh. 13 Annexure A page 15 dated 15. 2. 2008 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LVC)No. 1060 of 1998 wherein the labour court has dismissed the application exh. 13 made by the petitioner before the labour court.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Nanavati for the petitioner submitted that the application has been made by the petitioner stating that the reference (LVC) No. 1060 of 1998 is bad in law on the preliminary issue and it has been contended that such contention was raised in written statement filed vide Exh. 7 and document vide Exh. 8 and the said contention is required to be decided first. According to the submission made by the learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati, application regarding maintainability of reference is relating to 547 employees. Detailed reply was filed vide Exh. 7. He submitted that the employee was dismissed as per order in award and not as per company's decision and there is no question of industrial dispute. As per his submission, the industrial dispute is pending in Court No. 1, Industrial Court vide remand IT Ref. No. 102 of 1996. There is specific remand order and dispute is pending. He submitted that as per order of Parikh Saheb, Labour Court cannot decide whether the termination is legal or not. He also submitted that the labour court has no jurisdiction to scrutinize the order of Parikh Saheb. Employee had given application to join as necessary party in IT Reference No. 102 of 1996. It is produced at mark 14/2. The application is pending. If the name of the employee had not been included in total employees 547, then, the court has power and order to reinstate him. The employee has produced his withdrawal purshis in Reference Case NO. 102 of 1996 produced at mark 21/1. He submitted that there is no order passed below said application submitted by the concerned employee and, therefore, labour court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute of termination and he cited certain decisions and submitted that the reference made by the employee concerned must have to be dismissed.