NIRBHAY MEHROTRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINEET Saran, J. The petitioner, who was working as Deputy Director (Finance) in the establishment of the respondent No. 2, Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital, was dismissed from service vide order dated 9-12-1994. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit No. 7 of 1995 before the Civil Judge, Allahabad, which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter the petitioner raised an industrial dispute. Since the matter could not be reconciled, a reference was made by the State Government under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") to the Tribunal, which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 3 of 1999. The reference was as to whether the dismissal of the workman Sri Nirbhay Mehrotra was proper and legal and, if not, what relief would he be entitled to ? The Tribunal, thereafter, vide award dated 18-7-2000, held that since Sri Mehrotra could not be termed as a workman under the definition provided in the Act, hence there was no valid industrial dispute and the order of reference made by the State Government under the Act was without jurisdiction, and thus not maintainable. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard Sri Shyam Narain, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri V. R. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Piyush Bhargava, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents No. 2 and 3 hospital. Pleadings have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

(3.) FOR the purpose of deciding the reference made to it, the Tribunal framed four issues, namely, (i) Whether the workman claiming to be the workman is workman as defined in the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act ? If so, its effect; (ii) Whether, Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital, Allahabad is an industry as defined in the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act? If so, its effect; (iii) Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the employers was in accordance with law and fair complying the rules of natural justice? Its effect; and (iv) Whether the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal is barred in view of the fact that the workman had taken recourse and had filed civil suit which was latter withdrawn with permission from the Civil Court itself.