OFFICER COMMANDING, SOUTHERN COMMAND STATIONERY DEPOT, PUNE Vs. WORKMEN THROUGH SOUTHERN COMMAND STATIONERY DEPOT KAMGAR SANGH (INTUC) AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The officer commanding, Southern Command Stationery Depot, Ghorpadi, Pune is the petitioner aggrieved by the impugned order below Exh. C-6 passed by the industrial tribunal, Pune on 7th Feb. 1995 holding affirmatively that the tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate the industrial dispute referred by the Central Government under Sec. 10(1) read with Sec. 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide the order of reference dated 24th June, 1994.

(2.) It appears that the civilian employees of the petitioner establishment had raised an industrial dispute by submitting a charter of demands and since the petitioner did not accede to the said demands, the said employees approached the appropriate Government for reference to the appropriate authority for adjudication of the said industrial dispute. The Central Government referred the said industrial dispute for adjudication to the industrial tribunal, Pune by the order of reference dated 24.6.1994.

(3.) The workmen represented by the Southern Command Stationery Depot Kamgar Sangh (INTUC), hereinafter referred as the Sangh, filed its statement of claim to justify its demands. It further appears that the petitioner filed an application before the tribunal raising a preliminary issue of competence of the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal, Pune which was constituted under Sec. 7 (A) of the I.D. Act by the State of Maharashtra. According to the petitioner, the said reference ought to have been made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal or the workmen ought to have approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. It was contended that in no case, the industrial tribunal Pune constituted by the State of Maharashtra, has jurisdiction to adjudicate the said reference. The learned Member of the Tribunal by the impugned order held against the petitioners. The learned Member has given cogent reasons for arriving at his conclusion that the order of reference was rightly made by the Central Government to the Industrial Tribunal constituted under Sec. 7(A) of the I.D. Act by the State of Maharashtra. The learned Member has referred to the various provisions of the Act and has come to a right conclusion. The preliminary objection could have been sustained prior to the amendment Act 46 of 1982 came into effect, which was brought in force with effect from 21/8/1984. By the said amendment the following proviso has been added to Sec. 10 of the I.D. Act: