FIZZ DRINKS LIMITED Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard' Sri Ravi Agarwal learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.P. Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2-workman.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the award-dated 14th May, 1992 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) given by the Labour Court-respondent No. f on the grounds, inter alia, that respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to entertain the reference made by the State. Government under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and since no part of cause of action arose within the territory of the State of U.P. the impugned award is non-est, illegal and without jurisdiction.

(3.) Facts of the case in brief are that respondent No. 2-workman was appointed on the post of Accountant on salary of Rs. 1,000/- per month on temporary basis at petitioner's Company, namely, M/s. Fizz Drinks Ltd., Faridabad and was deputed to work at Meerut in the Sales Department of the Company. The salary of the workman was paid from Faridabad. The provident fund and the Insurance of the workman were also deducted and deposited at Faridabad office. The leave of the workman was also sanctioned at the Faridabad office. The workman was asked by the petitioner's Company to come and join duty at Faridabad office of the petitioner's Company in the last week of August, 1986. The respondent No. 2-workman appeared at the office of the petitioner's Company at Faridabad on 15.9.1986. The respondent No. 2 workman approached the petitioner's Company through letter under registered post with acknowledgement due dated 2.9.1986 and 11.9.1986 in respect of nonpayment of wages. It is the case of the petitioner's Company that since the workman did not turn up to resume his duty and voluntarily abandoned his appointment the petitioner's Company terminated the services of the respondent No. 2 workman on 15.9.1986. The workman raised industrial disputes before the State Government, which in turn referred the matter to the Labour Court (2), U.P., Meerut under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication of the following issue: "Whether termination of the services or deprivation thereof of their workman Hari Om Agarwal (Accountant-cum-Shipping Sales Office, Meerut) with effect from 15th September, 1986, is proper and/or legal? If no, to which benefits/reliefs is the concerned employee entitled to and with what particulars?