PRITAM SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. W. P. No. 4704 of 1989, 3202 of 1991, 3203 of 1991, 3889 of 1991, 3888 of 1991, 3207 of 1991, 3960 of 1991 and 1763 of 1991 (except CWP No. 3205 of 1991 which is being delisted due to non-service of workman-respondent No. 4) shall be disposed of by a common judgment/order as the legal controversy involved therein is the same although the factual matrix is different. The legal controversy in all these writ petitions is as to whether the appropriate Government to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act is the State Government, within whose territorial jurisdiction the workman was working and orders of dismissal have been received; or the State Government within whose territorial jurisdiction the head office of the industrial undertaking is located and where the orders dismissing workman have been passed.

(2.) AS the controversy is purely legal, the brief brief facts of each case will suffice. In CWP No. 4704 of 1989, Pritam Singh Workman was appointed on temporary basis as a Fertilizer Clerk on 12. 6. 1978 by the Managing Director of the Punjab Agro Industries Corporation, Chandigarh (hereinafter called as Corporation ). His services were regularised on 24. 1. 1979 but terminated vide order dated 24. 2. 1983 (Annexure P-1 ). Pritam Singh workman challenged the impugned order of termination in CWP No. 1399 of 1983 which was dismissed at the motion stage by the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that alternate and efficacious remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act was available to the petitioner-workman. He then served a demand notice under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, on the Management on 24. 6. 1983 but his demands were not accepted. The dispute could not be resolved even before the Conciliation Officer. Thereafter he successfully sought a reference to the Labour Court, Chandigarh from the Chandigarh Administration on 8. 1. 1985. The reference reads as under: "whether the services of Shri Pritam Singh were terminated illegally by the Management of Punjab Agro Industries Corporation? If so, to what effect and what relief he is entitled to?" Before the Labour Court, the Corporation inter alia raised the preliminary objection regarding lack of jurisdiction of the Labour Court, Chandigarh. Both the parties led evidence. The Labour Court found on evidence that Pritam Singh workman was employed at the branch office of the Corporation at Tarantaran and Phagwara. His services were terminated while he was serving at Tarantaran. The retrenchment compensation was also paid there and thus, Chandigarh Administration is not competent to make reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. By placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Ram Lal v. Labour Court Patiala and Ors. (1986) II L. L. J. 231, the reference was decided in favour of the management on the ground that it has not been made by the appropriate Government. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the workman has come up in this writ petition.

(3.) THE remaining writ petitions (except CWP. No. 3205/1991) are preferred by the Punjab State Handloom and Textiles Corporation Ltd. Chandigarh, for short called Puntex and Punjab State Co-Operative Supply Marketing Federation Limited Chandigarh, for short Markfed, challenging the competency of the Home Secretary, Union Territory, Chandigarh for making a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 at the stage where the Labour Court had not so far given any decision in this regard. In all those writ petitions, it is averred that the respondent-workmen are serving in different branches located in different cities in the State of Punjab and the letter of retrenchment, order of suspension or order of termination of services (as the case may be) was served upon the concerned workman at those places and thus, the relationship of master and servant was snapped at the place of the posting of the workman in different cities of the Punjab.