MUKAND LAL Vs. LABOUR COURT PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contention of the petitioner is that he was employed by respondent No. 2 as Ginning Supervisor and after two years his services were terminated in the year 1980 without notice, charge -sheet, inquiry or compensation. He raised an industrial dispute. However, respondent No. 1 vide impugned order dated 27.12.1983, copy Annexure P1, rejected the demand, by passing the following order : "I have been directed to draw your attention to above mentioned demand notice dated 16.10.1980 and clarify that the demand contained there is not fit for being referred for adjudication because your case has not been established." Petitioner's representation dated 1.9.1984 was rejected vide order dated 3.10.1984 by respondent No. 1, a copy of the same is Annexure P2. Another representation dated 30. 1.1985 was rejected by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 16.3.1985, copy of the same is Annexure P3.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner -argued that respondent No. 1 has gone beyond its jurisdiction and decided the matter on merits. On reading the impugned order, Annexure P1, the argument appears to be correct. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment in the case of S.C, Parida v. State of Haryana, 1999(1) SLR 296 :, 1999(2) SCT 563 (P&H). It has been held therein that when the reference was declined on the ground that the person was not a workman as he was working in the supervisory capacity, the Government, as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while considering the question whether reference should be made or not, cannot delve into the merits of the dispute. Therefore, a direction was issued to make reference to the appropriate forum.

(3.) CONSIDERING the law laid down by the Courts, as mentioned above, and the reasons given by respondent No. 1 in Annexure P1, it is clear that he (respondent No. 1) has gone beyond jurisdiction by delving in the judicial aspects of the case and taking a decision itself which the Labour Court should have taken. The impugned order and the consequent orders of rejection of representations of the petitioner, therefore, deserve to be set aside.