PHOOLCHAND GUPTA Vs. MANAGER PRAYAG BUS SERVICE REWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was employed as a Conductor in February 1972 by respondent No 1. During the pendency of a reference before the Labour Court, in which the petitioner was one of the workmen involved, the service of the petitioner was terminated on 29 -5 -1973. Accordingly an application under section 33 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was filed by the petitioner in the Labour Court, Jabalpur, alleging contravention of the provisions of section 33 of the Act by the employer. It appears that conciliation proceedings were also held as a result of the dispute arising out of the petitioner's termination of service and the same having failed, a reference was made to the Labour Court, Budhar, under section 10(1) of the Act by order dated 16 -12 -1975 (Annexure A). The reference was to adjudicate about the legality and validity of the termination of the petitioner's service. Thereafter, in the proceedings of that reference before the Labour Court, Budhar, an application was made by the employer without filing his written statement, contending that the petitioner be directed to withdraw one of those two proceedings since the scope of both of them was the same. The Labour Court, by its order dated 13 -12 -1976 directed the employer to file his written statement by the next date, if before that date the petitioner withdrew the other proceedings, namely, application under section 33 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act filed in the Labour Court, Jabalpur. Thereupon, the petitioner withdrew his application made to the Labour Court, Jabalpur, under section 33 -A of the Act and that application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 27 -12 -1976 passed by the Labour Court, Jabalpur.

(2.) AFTER withdrawal of the petitioner's application made under section 33 -A of the Act to the Labour Court, Jabalpur in the above manner, the employer proceeded to contend that the reference made under section 10(1) of the Act was incompetent and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the same, since that reference had been made during the pendency of the petitioner's application under section 33 -A of the Act and both the proceedings related to the same matter, i.e., termination of the petitioner's service. This objection of the employer has been upheld by the Labour Court, Budhar, by its order dated 6 -4 -1978 (Annexure E) and it has been held that the reference is illegal and, therefore, it cannot proceed. Aggrieved by this order made by the Labour Court, Budhar, holding the reference to be incompetent, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the same.

(3.) THE Labour Court has placed reliance on a decision of the Patna High Court in R. I. M. Sangh v. State of Bihar, 1974 Lab. I C 1266, to hold that the reference in the present case is illegal and without jurisdiction. That was a case in which a dispute having already been referred under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, it was held that another reference made subsequently of the same dispute under the same provision was illegal. In short, it was held that in view of the earlier reference of the same dispute, it could not be said that the dispute was not already referred to for adjudication, when the second reference was made. That is not the position in the present case in this case, there is only one reference made under section 10 of the Act and the question is whether it is invalid on account of the fact that the proceedings under section 33 -A of the Act commenced by the petitioner in respect of the same subject -matter had been initiated earlier.