CHAMAN SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-workman has filed this writ petition challenging the award of Labour Court Patiala thereby it dismissal the reference made to it by the State for the reason that the earlier reference was got dismissed by the petitioner as withdrawn. The petitioner has challenged this award of the Labour Court.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present case are that respondent No. 2, the Steel Authority of India Ltd. illegally terminated the services of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application to the State of Punjab for making a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1987 to the Labour Court. The State of Punjab, vide its notification No. ID/PT/444-A-80/91993-97 dated 2nd December, 1980, made the following reference :-

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and am of the opinion that the impugned award is liable to be set aside in as much as the earlier reference application was withdrawn on a technical objection taken by the respondent-management that the State of Punjab was not competent to make the reference to the Labour Court and, in fact, the reference should have been made by the Central Government, the respondent-management being a Central body. The earlier reference application was withdrawn with permission to file a fresh reference application and on that understanding the earlier reference application was dismissed as withdrawn. The matter was never decided on merits. Since the matter was not decided on merits but was got dismissed by the petitioner with liberty to him to file a fresh reference on the same cause of action. I find no justification in the reasoning given by the Labour Court in dismissing the second reference on the ground that the earlier reference having been dismissed (although as withdrawn). The second reference was not maintainable. The second reference was not maintainable, the petitioner is entitled to at least one adjudication on merits, and the Labour Court was not justified in denying it to the petitioner. The question of second reconciliation proceedings and other formalities for the second reference were not required to be gone into. The writ petition is therefore, liable to be allowed.