DALMIA DADRI CEMENT LIMITED Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN Industrial dispute having arisen between the petitioners Dalmia Dadri Cement, Ltd. , Charkhi Dadri, Punjab, on the one hand, and their employees on the other, the Punjab Government referred the name for decision to the labour court toy virtue of Notification No. 1924-VII-DSLab-6 0/16830, dated 30 May 1960. The following items of dispute were specifically mentioned in the said notification:--

(2.) THE main ground on which they rely la that a reference having once been, made to the labour court, Rohtak, could not be withdrawn from the said Court and that the dispute could not be made the subject-matter of a fresh reference to the industrial tribunal, Punjab. The petition is opposed both by the State and by the workers, who urge that the labour court at Rohtak had no jurisdiction to hear the reference and, therefore, the said reference was wholly inoperative and amounted to a nullity. Dr. Anand Parkash, learned Counsel for the petitioners, raises three contentions before me which are as under:

(3.) THE first two contentions have got a good deal of force, but in the present case the real point on which the decision of this case Hinges is whether the labour court, Rohtak had any jurisdiction to try the dispute referred to it. In their order, dated 2 July 1960, the Government stated that the dispute referred to the labour court really fell within the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal, Punjab, and presumably the basis for this order were that items (2) and (3) of the dispute affected more than one hundred workmen. The petitioners in the present case have not pleaded that the labour court, Rohtak, had jurisdiction to try the case, or that items (2) and (3) of the dispute were to affect workers who were less than one hundred in number. In order to challenge the action of the Government successfully, it was necessary for the petitioners to have controverted the position taken by the Government and to have made definite allegations on the point that the labour court, Rohtak, had jurisdiction to try the reference. It, is conceded by Dr. Anand Prakash that items (2) and (3) of the dispute could be tried by the labour court only if the decision on the same would affect workers, less than one hundred in number. He could not, however, state at the Bar that this was the factual position. In these circumstances it cannot be held that the Government was in error in saying that the labour court at Rohtak had no jurisdiction to try the reference and the reference to the said Court in these circumstances must be held to be inoperative and as a thing non-existent in the eye of law. The position that emerges, from this is that the dispute had never been legally referred to the labour court and the Government was, therefore, at liberty to refer it to the industrial tribunal, Punjab. The petition, in these circumstances, has no merits at all and is accordingly dismissed with costs.