PHOOL CHAND Vs. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner appearing in person has filed this writ petition primarily to say that the respondents have not complied with the order passed by this Court, Annexure P-1. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court through CWP No. 15380 of 2010 with a prayer that direction be issued to respondent No. 5-Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana to take legal action against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for their unlawful appearance to prolong the proceedings with a further prayer that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be restrained from taking illegal and unlawful action just to provide shelter to the defaulters. This Court vide its decision dated 16.8.2010 found that the prayer of the petitioner to an extent that respondent No. 2 be directed to take a final decision on the complaint made by the petitioner was made out and accordingly issued direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Thereafter the respondents have made a reference of the industrial dispute under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and to pass an award within three months. Reference now made is as under:

(2.) The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present writ petition with a grievance that the order passed by this Court has not been complied with or followed.

(3.) If the grievance is that the order has not been complied with, the petitioner may have his appropriate remedy. Apparently, the Government has made a reference of the dispute with regard to the termination as well as unfair labour practice shown in Serial No. 5(e) Part-I Scheduled 5 of Industrial Disputes Act. The complaint made by the petitioner was that said respondent No. 3 has resorted to unfair labour practice. The petitioner submits that once no one appeared in response to the complaint filed by him, the authority was bound to assume that they had nothing to say against the same and accordingly the action was required to be taken. As per the petitioner, the action of the respondents, to refer the same for adjudication to the Labour Court, therefore, is not justified. This plea of the petitioner can not be accepted. Merely because, the respondent had not appeared would not mean that the commission of unfair labour practice is to be assumed or is made out. Once the reference has been made on the basis of a complaint made by the petitioner to see whether there is any unfair labour practice, the issue will be adjudicated by the Labour Court and decided. In any case, the issue that unfair labour practice is committed cannot be gone into in the manner sought to be agitated by the petitioner. No case for issuing any direction in the manner as prayed is made out.