PUNJAB FINANCIAL CORPORATION Vs. UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 1 was appointed as Junior Clerk with the petitioner-Corporation on 14tt July, 1962 then Jalandhar. He was thereafter promoted as Senior Clerk, then as Assistant and finally as Assistant Accountant, and was transferred to Ludhiana on 6th April, 1980. On 8th September, 1981, he was transferred to Bhatinda where his services were terminated by order dated 10th May, 1982, in terms,. of Regulation 19 (2) (b) of the Punjab Financial Corporation (Staff Regulations) 1961, which are statutory in nature. A copy of the order which had been issued from Chandigarh and received by respondent No. 2 at Bhatinda has been appended as Annexure P-1 to the petition. Respondent No. 2 there after filed an appeal before the Board of Directors of the petitioner Corporation and the same was 'rejected. on 11th April, 1983. Still feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 2 submitted a demand note Annexure P-2 to the petitioner claiming reinstatement. Conciliation proceedings having lasted, respondent No. 1 i e The Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh made a reference of the Industrial Dispute to the Labour Court at Chandigarh. The petitioner filed a detailed written statement in answer to the reference raising a number of objections, inter alia that the appropriate Government for making the reference under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) was the Punjab Government and not the Administrator of the Union Territory Administration as the service of respondent No. 2 had been terminated at Bhatinda; that respondent No. 2 did not fall within the definition of workman and that, in any case, the petitioner was not an industry so as to be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. It was also urged that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to its employees as their service conditions were governed by the regulations framed under a special statute i. e. State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. The Labour Court vide its award dated 3rd September, 1990, Annexure P-4 to the petition, found in favour of the workman on the following four issues that had been framed by it :

(2.) THE only argument raised by Mr. Nijjar, learned Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation, is that as the termination orders had been served on respondent No. 2 at Bhatinda, where he was then posted, the reference should have been :made by the Government of Punjab and not by the Administrator of the Union Territory Administration. For this, proposition, reliance has been placed by Mr. Nijjar on a Division Bench decision of this Court oreported as Ram Lal v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala , 1986, (1) S. L. R. 633 in which the question of law posed was "whether the 'appropriate Government' to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication under Section 10 is the State Government, within whose territorial jurisdiction the workman was working anil orders of dismissal had been received; or the State Government within whose territorial jurisdiction the head office of/or the industrial undertaking is located and where the orders dismissing the workman have been passed ?" The answer was rendered in the fallowing words in para 13 of the judgment :

(3.) MR. D. V. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent has, however, placed reliance on a number of other judgments all of which were considered by the Division Bench in Ram Lal's case (supra) and after considering this aspect of the matter, the question was answered in the manner, indicated above In view of what has been stated above, it is to be held that the Administrator, Union Territory I Administration was not the appropriate Government in making the reference to the Labour Court.