SONEPAT CO Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vijender Singh (respondent No. 2), a Law Graduate, was appointed as a Labour Officer with the Sonepat Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Sonepat, the petitioner. This appointment was made on November 9, 1976. His services were terminated on June 3, 1979. Aggrieved by the action of the Management in terminating his services, respondent No. 2 approached the Labour Court. The following two issues were framed:-

(2.) By its order of November 14, 1981 (Annexure P.1) the Labour Court found that Vijender Singh "did all the work under the direction of the management without any independent initiative" and that "he was not assigned any supervisory duties rather maintained a number of registers involving a lot of clerical work.....The management has not been able to name even one duty which could bring him outside the purview of Section 2(s)." Thereafter, the Labour Court proceeded "to examine the validity of the order of termination. By its award of September 4, 1984, the Labour Court found that the order of termination "was passed for alleged misconduct of the workman, though no enquiry was held by the competent authority to prove the same." It was also held that "the order of termination dated 3rd January, 1979 passed against the workman is in flagrant disregard of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, because no retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman or any notice was given to him."

(3.) Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, the Mill has approached this Court through the present petition. Initially the petitioner had challenged the order dated November 14, 1981 (Annexure P.1) through a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, viz. Civil Revision No. 1255 of 1982. This petition was dismissed on May 6, 1982 wish the observation that the petitioner may file a writ petition against the Award that may be ultimately given by the Labour Court. Consequently, both the orders have been challenged in the present writ petition. The primary ground raised in the writ petition was that in view of the provisions of Section 128 read with Section 102 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 , the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute involved in the present case. This ground having been negative by the judgment of the Full Bench in C.W.P. No. 2018 of 1985 decided on August 14, 1986, "Mr. Pawan Mutneja, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that respondent No. 2 was not a workman. This matter has been concluded on appreciation of evidence by the learned Labour Court. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the finding is in any way perverse. The High Court does not sit as a Court of appeal while considering the awards given by the Labour Court. There is no infirmity in the award of the Labour Court.