DHAMPUR SUGAR MILLSLTD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, employer -petitioner M/s. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. have challenged the reference made by the State of U.P. dated 14 -7 -1995, Annexure -3 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said reference made by the State of U.P., employer filed present writ petition before this Court in which this Court vide its order dated 10 -11 -1995 has stayed further proceedings pursuance to the aforesaid reference, thus the proceedings before the Labour Court were stayed.

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. A point has been taken that since there is a reference, of course a case was registered by the Labour Court being Adjudication Case No. 189 of 1975 to the effect Whether the termination of the services of workman Hanshraj Watawali, son of Sri Ramlal Verma, Workshop Supervisor by the employer w.e.f. 13 -9 -1974 was justified or not,if not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled? From the averment made in the writ petition, it is abundantly clear that the dispute was referred in the year 1975 to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut and the same was numbered as adjudication case No. 135 of 1978. It appears that during the pendency of the aforesaid reference, the question has arisen as to whether the then Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, namely, Sri M. Ahsan was competent to hear the reference made by the State Government or not? In this regard, it is submitted that certain employers have filed writ petitions before this Court, with which this case has no concerned, with regard to eligibility of certain person, like Sri M. Ahsan as Presiding Officer of the Labour Court and this Court has stayed further proceedings in those matters. In the aforesaid matter including several other cases Sri M. Ahsan passed the following order on 9th June, 1982, which reads thus :

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid, it is clear that once a reference is made, it is presumed that the State Government is satisfied that industrial dispute is still subsisting, therefore the Labour Court cannot go behind the reference. Apart from above, in a recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been held that the discretion of the State Government that the dispute is still exists, cannot be questioned by the Labour Court and the Labour Court cannot go behind the reference.