BUREAU CHIEF RASTRIYA SAHARA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Shakti Swamp Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G. Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against the award dated 24.12.2007 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Adjudication Case No. 275 of 1999 and published on 1st April, 2008,

(3.) The brief facts of this case are that the respondent No. 2 Munraj Singh invoked the power of the State Government under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Act) raising an industrial dispute challenging the termination of his service by the respondent No. 1 by his order dated 1.10.1998 on the ground that the said order was passed without complying with the mandatory requirements stipulated under Section 6N of the U.P. Act, although the respondent No. 2 had worked as salesman in the establishment of the petitioner for more than 240 days. The said dispute was referred to the respondent No. 1 by the State Govt. vide its order dated 22.11.1999 and registered as Adjudication Case No. 275 of 1999. Upon being noticed the petitioners appeared before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I) at Kanpur and filed their written statement opposing the claim of the respondent No. 2. Apart from filing their written statement the petitioners had adduced voluminous evidence before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I) at Kanpur which has been appended to this writ petition compositely as annexure No. 2 which demonstrates that the respondent No. 2 was not working as salesman as alleged by him in his written statement but was in fact employed in the petitioners' establishment as hawker. The petitioners had further raised a preliminary objection before the respondent No. 1 challenging the power of the State Govt. to refer the dispute under Section 4K of the U. P. Act and the competency and jurisdiction of the respondent No. 1 to entertain the adjudication case in view of the provisions of Section 3 of The Working Journalist and Another Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 (45 of 1955), (hereinafter referred to as the Act 45 of 1955) which provide that the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (14 of 1947), as in force for the time being, shall, subject to the modifications specified in sub-section 2, apply to, or in relation to, working journalists as they apply to, or in relation to workmen within the meaning of that Act, and hence in this view of the matter the Central Govt. alone was competent to refer the dispute in hand and that to, to a tribunal or a labour Court constituted under the Central Act.