ALFA LAVAL I LTD Vs. K D WAGHMARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. RESPONDENT waives service. Heard forthwith. By the present petition, petitioners impugn the order dated September 16, 2000. The dispute had been referred by the appropriate Government to the Second Labour court, Pune. The reference arises out of termination of the services of one Shri Karbhari devji Waghmare. The relevant portion of the reference reads as under:

(2.) PARTIES appeared before the Second labour Court and filed claims statement and written statement. The employer in their written statement raised a plea that there were no relationship of workman and employer. It was their contention that Shri Waghmare was in the personal employment of their president/chair-Person/managing Director one Ms. Leela Poonawala. On account of this plea, the workman moved an application under section 18 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 praying that Ms. Poonawala, Managing director and V. A. Datar, Director be summoned to appear and directed to submit written statement. This was opposed by the company by their application contending that in fact what the workman was seeking to do was to amend the Reference order and in these circumstances the application ought to be rejected.

(3.) BY the impugned order the Second labour Court, Pune held that the Court under section 18 (3) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act has got power to implead parties and for the purposes of deciding the real controversy the presence of Ms. Poonawala and Datar was required and as such allowed the application. At the hearing of the petition, on behalf of the petitioners their learned counsel contends that the order of the Second Labour Court is without jurisdiction as it has the effect of amending the reference itself. It is further contended that section 18 (3) will not be attracted as in the event Labour Court arrives at the conclusion that the workman was in the employment of the petitioner, it will have jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders. In the event Labour Court conies to the conclusion that there is no relationship of workman and employer between the petitioner and Respondent No. 1, it will have to reject the Reference. It cannot direct the persons who are summoned under section 18 or added as parties to take the workman in their services or reinstate the respondent No. 1 or even direct payment of any compensation. On the other hand, on behalf of the Respondent, their learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hochtief Gammon v. Industrial tribunal, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa and Others air 1964 SC 1746 : 1964-II-LLJ-460. It is therefore, contended that the order is within jurisdiction and therefore, not liable to be interfered with.