HINDUSTAN LEAVER LIMITED Vs. FOURTH INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court has heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the learned Advocate for the State-respondents and also the learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 to 54. Briefly, the facts of the present case are as follows: There is no dispute that the respondent Nos. 3 to 54 are persons who have retired from the employment of the petitioner-company. It also appears that there is no dispute that the respondent Nos. 3 to 54 are enjoying their pension in terms of the relevant settlement. It appears that an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent Nos. 3 to 54 and by an order of reference the following issues were referred to the respondent No. 1 for adjudication: "(i) Whether the demand of the retired employees as per list enclosed for pension at higher rates as given to the subsequent retirees is justified? (ii) What relief, if any, are they entitled to?"

(2.) Written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 54 and written statement was also filed on behalf of the petitioner-company. The petitioner raised the question of maintainability of the order of reference and took the stand that the said order of reference was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the concerned ex-employees having retired and availed of pension under the respective settlements applicable to them and there being separation of relationship with the management, such ex- employees cannot claim to be workmen as contemplated under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issues raised cannot be subject-matter of an industrial dispute under section 2A of the said Act of 1947. For ready reference the order of reference is quoted below:

(3.) Some of the respondents-retired employees namely respondent Nos. 5, 14 and 28 adduced evidence in support of their claim and documents were exhibited on their behalf as would appear from pages 275 to 286 of the writ petition. On 29.07.2004 an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner wherein the following prayer was made: "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that since the evidence adduced on behalf of the retirees, both oral and documentary, conclusively establish the incompetence of the Reference and lack of jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal to entertain the same, before the evidence of the company, be pleased to reject the instant Reference and pass necessary order or orders in connection therewith." An objection was filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 54 against the said application dated 29.07.2004.