RASBEHARY MOHANTY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was employed in the State Transport Service of Orissa as a conductor and was actually posted under the direct control of the District Transport Manager, Rourkela (opposite party No. 2 ). He was discharged from service with effect from 4th August, 1969. An industrial dispute was raised before the District Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, Rourkeh. On 29th April, 1970, the management represented by the opposite party No. 2 and the union representing the petitioner agreed that the dispute arising out of the discharge from service of the petitioner be referred for arbitration of Shri L. Misra, I. A. S. , who was then working as Deputy Labour Commissioner, Rourkela. In the midst of the arbitration proceeding, Shri L. Misra was transferred from Rourkela to Bhubaneswar and his new assignment was as Director, Export Promotion and Marketing (Ex-Officio Deputy Secretary to Government in the Industries Department ). After Shri Misra joined his new assignment he continued the arbitration proceeding and by notice dated 20th of October, 1970, required the parties to appear before him on 26th October, 1970. The parties appeared on the date fixed and Shri Misra delivered the award on the very same day after hearing parties. In terms of the award, the petitioner became entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages. As the opposite party No, 2 did not accept the joining report of the petitioner and was not prepared to pay him the back wages, an application was made by the petitioner under Section 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 (hereafter referred to as the "act") before the Labour Court (opposite party No. 1 ). The opposite party No. 2 challenged the validity of the award on the ground that the dispute had been referred for arbitration of the Deputy Labour Commissioner and Shri Misra was not appointed as Arbitrator in his personal capacity. Upon Shri Misra ceasing to hold office as Deputy Labour Commissioner, he had no authority to continue to act as the Arbitrator. The award was, therefore, vitiated. It was further contended that as the award had not been published in accordance with the mandate given under Section 17 of the Act, it was not enforceable and no relief under Section 33c (2) of the Act was, therefore, available to the petitioner.

(2.) THE Labour Court came to hold that : (i) the petition under Section 33c (2) of the Act was not maintainable ; (ii) the award was not rendered ineffective on account of non-publication under Section 17 of the Act ; and (iii) the reference to arbitration had been made to the Deputy Labour Commissioner and not to Shri Misra personally and, therefore, upon Shri Misra ceasing to hold office as Deputy Labour Commissioner, he ceased to be the Arbitrator. Accordingly, the Labour Court rejected the application. This application for a writ of certiorari is directed against the said decision of the Labour Court.

(3.) THE opposite party No. 2 has reiterated his stand before the Labour Court. According to him, the Labour Court has gone wrong in holding that the application was maintainable under Section 33c (2) of the Act as also that the award did not require publication under Section 17 of the Act. He supports the finding of the Labour Court that the reference was to the Deputy Labour Commissioner and, therefore, Shri Misra upon vacating the said office could not have continued the arbitration proceeding.