PIONEER LTD Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against two orders of transfer made by the Government of Uttar pradesh on 1 January and 10 June 1981, transferring a miscellaneous case commenced on an application of respondent 4, Munna lal, under S. 33c (2) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act ). By the first order, the case had been transferred from the Labour Court, Bareilly, to the Fourth labour Court, Kanpur, and by the subsequent order the case was transferred from the Fourth labour Court, Kanpur, to the Labour Court, Gorakhpur.

(2.) THE petitioner is a public limited company. It published two newspapers from Lucknow, one in English known as the Pioneer and the other in Hindi called The swatantra Bharat. Munna Lal, respondent 4, herein was employed as a correspondent of pioneer at Goraknpur. On 18/8/1973, the managing editor of the Pioneer terminated the services of the said respondent with immediate effect. This gave rise to an industrial dispute which was referred by the State government under S. 10 (1) of the Industrial disputes Act (Central,) by a notification, dated 8 June 1974. The dispute was adjudicated by the Labour Court, Gorakhpur, which gave an award, dated 9 December 1976, holding that the termination of the services of respondent 4 was illegal and unjustified and directing his reinstatement with the benefit of back-wages. It is stated by the petitioner that after this award respondent 4 was reinstated but as he had already crossed the age of superannuation he was retired from service. Respondent 4 thereafter filed an application under Sec. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes act before the Labour Court, Bareilly, for computation of the benefits allowable to him in consequence of the aforesaid award. In the application, it was alleged that the petitioner had refused to pay to the said respondent, the amounts to which he was entitled and as a result of the aforesaid award. This application gave rise to the Miscellaneous case No. 21 of 1980. The parties filed their written statements before the Labour Court, bareilly, and issues were framed. Thereafter it appears that respondent 4 made an application before the Labour Court, Bareilly, on 22/9/1980, to the effect that he had applied for the transfer of the case from the Labour Court, Bareilly to the Labour court, Gorakhpur, to the State Government and that the hearing of the miscellaneous case be, therefore, adjourned. On that application, the Labour Court passed an order on 29/9/1980, that the hearing of the case be adjourned for a period of two months and it fired 21/11/1980, as the next date for the hearing of the case. It further appears that respondent 4 had made an application to the State Government along with his affidavit praying therein for the transfer of the case from the Labour Court, bareilly, to the Labour Court, Gorakhpur, where the said respondent resides. It is alleged in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the said respondent that comments on this application were called for from the Presiding officer and on the receipt of the comments the case was transferred by an order, dated 1 January 1981, from the Labour Court, bareilly, to the Fourth Labour Court, Kanpur, with a further direction that the hearing of the case shall take place at Gorakhpur. On 19 February 1981, the file of the case was received by the Fourth Labour Court, Kanpur, from the Labour Court, Bareilly. The case was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 67 of 1981, by the Fourth Labour Court, Kanpur, and notices were issued to the parties to appear before the said Labour Court on 25/3/1981. On 10/6/1981, the Government of uttar Pradesh passed a further order purporting to exercise the powers under Sec. 33b of the industrial Disputes Act (Central) transferring the case from the Fourth Labour Court at kanpur to the Labour Court, Gorakhpur, on the ground that the Presiding Officer, Fourth labour Court, Kanpur, had expressed his inability to dispose of the case and had requested that the case be transferred to the labour Court, Gorakhpur. The petitioner is aggrieved by these two orders of transfer.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in regard to these orders of transfer was that the same had been passed without giving any opportunity or notice to the petitioner. The case had been transferred from Bareilly at the instance of respondent 4, a working journalist, on certain allegations which are stated to have been made both against the Presiding Officer as well as the management. The petitioner was hence entitled to be given an opportunity before the case was transferred. In regard to the transfer of the case from Kanpur to Gorakhpur, again the petitioner was given no opportunity. The two orders were, therefore, liable to be struck down on that ground alone. The second submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Gorakhpur, was not authorized to adjudicate on matters in regard to working journalists and consequently, the transfer of the case made to that Court was illegal and void.