BHARAT TEXTILE MILLS Vs. PUNJAB STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE sitting singly, two points were raised before me by the counsel for the Petitioner, one of which was decided against the Petitioner in view of a Bench decision of this Court in Algu Ram v. The State of Punjab and Ors., 1977 P.L.R. 283. On the other point, I had noticed conflict in two Single Bench decisions of this Court and referred the following question for decision of the Division Bench:

(2.) THE Government of Punjab, in exercise of its power under Section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') issued notification dated 11th August, 1967, empowering the labour Commissioner to exercise the powers of the State Government under Section 10 and 12(5) of the Act in relation to an individual dispute falling under Section 2 -A of the Act. In pursuance of the aforesaid notification, the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, in exercise of his delegated powers under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act, issued notification dated 7th November, 1968, for referring the following individual dispute for determination by Labour Court, Jullundur:

(3.) ON the other hand, the counsel for the workman and the State had relied upon another Single Bench decision of H.R. Sodhi, J., in Doaba Roadways Limited Hoshiarpur v. The Labour Court and Ors., 1971 P.L.R. 836 and Dattatraya Moreshwar v. The State of Bombay and Ors. : A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 181 and had urged that since the power had clearly been delegated to the Labour Commissioner to issue notification under Section 10, to refer an individual dispute, the mere fact that he issued the notification in the name of the President of India did not make any difference in law and such a mistake on the part of the labour Commissioner was not of substance and was merely of form and therefore, would not affect the validity of the notification referring the dispute to the labour Court. From the judgment of H.R. Sodhi, J., reliance has been placed on the following passage: