STATE OF U P Vs. LABOUR COURT VARANSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLEADINGS have been exchanged and the learned Counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be disposed of finally under the Rules of the Court. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against an award of the labour Court dated 27 -1 -1997 by which the claim of the respondent workman has been accepted and his termination has been held to be against the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and a direction has been issued for his reinstatement with full backwages.

(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that the Deputy Labour Commissioner did not have any jurisdiction to make a reference under Section 4 -K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, as the power vests only with the State Government. Though, this point was never urged before the labour Court as is evident from the ward while the copy of the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner has not been made part of this writ petition, nevertheless, since it is purely a legal question it has to be considered.