H M T LIMITED Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition raises three substantial questions of law which can be summed up as follows: On a reference being made by a State Government under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would the High Court have the jurisdiction to entertain a challenge by way of a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution to the reference on the ground that the State Government which made the reference had no territorial jurisdiction to make the reference ?

(2.) IN order to appreciate the controversy, a few relevant facts may be noticed.

(3.) HINDUSTAN Machine Tools Limited - -the Petitioner is engaged in the production and sale of watches, tractors and other heavy machineries. It has numerous plants situated all over the country. Respondent No. 3. Ratni Kaul, (hereinafter referred to as "the workman"), was a resident of State of Jammu and Kashmir. She was appointed as Operator Trainee, - -vide appointment letter dated 13th January, 1973. After completing her training, she was confirmed on the post and continued in service at Srinagar. Due to the problems in Kashmir Valley, she was posted on a temporary basis to H.M.T. Limited Watch Show Room/Service Centre, Bombay (now Mumbai), by order dated 10th August, 1991. This order was issued from the Head Office of the Petitioner - -company at Bangalore. The workman requested for her posting at Chandigarh which was rejected. Accordingly, she joined duties at Bombay on 23rd April, 1992. She worked in Bombay till 30th April, 1992. Thereafter, she applied for leave from 2nd May, 1992 to 23rd May, 1992 on the ground that her child was not well. Thereafter she kept requesting for extension of her leave on various grounds, such as, medical leave, maternity leave etc. She also repeatedly requested for her transfer to Chandigarh. On 13th October, 1992 a show Cause Notice was sent to her seeking her explanation about her absence. An enquiry was conducted into the allegations made against her. She was found guilty. Ultimately, she was demoted from WG v. to WG IV by order dated 20th March, 1995. She was designated as Inspector -B. Her appeal against the order of punishment was dismissed on 29th June, 1995. Inspite of this, the" workman did not join duty. On 28th August, 1995, another Show Cause Notice was sent to her seeking her explanation as to why she should not be deemed to have voluntarily left and abandoned the company service. After due procedure, again she was found guilty of the charges. However, the Petitioner took a compassionate view and decided not to inflict any punishment on the workman. She was rather advised to join duties. Again the workman did not comply with the request of the Petitioner -management. Since the workman had not joined duties for about five and half years, another charge -sheet dated 19th December, 1997 was served on her. This charge sheet contained two charges, i.e., absence without leave for more than 7 consecutive days without sufficient grounds or proper satisfactory explanation and wilful insubordination. Ex -parte enquiry was held at Bombay. The charges were held to be proved. Ultimately, the workman was dismissed from service by order dated 30th January, 1999. This order was passed at and sent by the Head Office at Bangalore by registered post to the address of the workman at Chandigarh. The letter is dated 30th January, 1999. The workman served a demand notice dated 19th April, 1999 on the management. The demand notice is addressed to the Head Office of the management at Bangalore. The management sent a reply to the demand notice to the workman rejecting her claim. The management also addressed a letter dated 17th July, 1999 to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, U.T., Chandigarh, stating therein that the workman should either file her grievance/complaint with the appropriate authority at Mumbai which was her last place of working or at Bangalore where Registered Office of the company is located. A reminder dated 1st September, 1999 was also sent to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, U.T., Chandigarh, to the same effect. Inspite of the objections, the Chandigarh Administration, Labour Department, by order dated 3rd January, 2000, has made a reference of a dispute between the management and the workman to the Labour Court -cum -Industrial Tribunal, U.T., Chandigarh, under Section 10(1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as "the Labour Court"). The dispute referred is as follows: Whether the services of Smt. Ratni Kaul were terminated illegally by the M.D. Hindustan Machine Tools Limited, if so, to what effect and to what relief is she entitled to if any?