MANAGEMENT OF ELECTRONIC LTD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Management of Electronics Limited, Faridabad is the petitioner. It terminated the services of respondent No. 3 on July 6, 1980. Feeling aggrieved by the order of termination, the workman served a notice of demand. After consideration of the matter, the competent authority vide order dated October 17, 1980 declined to make reference. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P-2. Subsequently, on February 19, 1981, the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), referred the case to the Industrial Tribunal, Haryana, Faridabad. The learned Tribunal vide its decision dated December 9, 1982 held that the concerned employee was a workman under the Act. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P-8. The petitioner challenged this order through Civil Writ Petition No. 1436 of 1983 which was dismissed in limine. The Tribunal then proceeded to record evidence and gave its award on August 24, 1984. A copy of this award has been produced on the record as Annexure P-46 to the petition. By this award, the Tribunal has found that the provisions of Section 25-F have not been complied with by management before terminating the services of the workman. Consequently, the order of the termination has been held to be illegal. However, the Tribunal has further found that the petitioner had purchased two trucks after the termination of his services and his income from these trucks could not be less than the wages which he was drawing. Consequently, the claim for back wages has been declined. Aggrieved by this award the management has approached this Court through the present writ petition.

(2.) MR. Ashok Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that respondent was working as a Supervisor with the Management. He was not workman. In any case, he had purchased trucks and was running his own business. He had remained on leave for a long time from January 2, 1980 onwards. Learned counsel referred to the applications for leave, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P-13 to P-26 to contend that the workman was gainfully employed and that no case for ordering the reinstatement of the respondent was made out. It was further contended by the learned counsel that in the circumstances of the present case, the reference of the dispute by the State Government was in violation of the principles of natural justice and on that ground alone, the award deserved to be quashed. Learned counsel for the respondents have controverted the claim made on behalf of the petitioner.

(3.) THE primary question that arises for consideration is--was the reference under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Act violative of the principles of natural justice? If the petitioner succeeds on this question, then the necessity of considering the other points is obviated.