TRIBUNE TRUST Vs. PRESIDING OFFICE LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against order dated July 27, 1993 vide which the learned single Judge dismissed C.W.P. No. 82 of 1992 (reported in 1994 Lab IC 1385) filed by the appellant for quashing the applications filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the 1947 Act') and notices dated November 14, 1991 and November 26, 1991 issued by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda (respondent No. 1).

(2.) Respondent No. 2 - Babu Ram Bansal submitted two applications under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (for short 'the 1955 Act') to the Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Labour and Employment Department, Chandigarh for recovery of Rs. 66,766.30 and Rs. 64,359.60 from the Dainik Tribune, Chandigarh and The Punjabi Tribune, Chandigarh respectively claiming that the said amount was due to him on account of mandatory monthly retainer allowance as Palekar Wage Board Award. In its reply the appellant raised several objections including the one relating to the jurisdiction of the Government of Punjab to entertain the applications and after considering the same, the Labour Commissioner, Punjab informed respondent No. 2 that as per Rule 36 of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Rules, 1957 (for short, 'the 1957 Rules'), his case fell within the jurisdiction of Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed two applications under Section 33-C(2) of the 1947 Act in the Labour Courts at Chandigarh and Bhatinda for payment of the amounts specified therein. After registration of the application filed before him, respondent No. 1 issued notices dated November 14, 1991 and November 26, 1991 to the appellant for its appearance on January 9, 1992 and January 22, 1992. However, instead of putting appearance, the appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the applications and the two notices by asserting that respondent No. 2 was not its employee and, therefore, he did not have the locus standi to claim benefits under the 1955 Act and in any case, respondent No. 1 did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by him under Section 33-C of the 1947 Act.

(3.) Respondent No. 2 controverted the appellant's plea that respondent No. 1 does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by him under Section 33-C(2) of the 1947 Act. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition with the following observations: