PRITAM SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the judgment dated August 17, 1993 passed by the learned single Judge deciding a bunch of Writ Petitions. The question of law, which has arisen for consideration, is "as to who should be the 'appropriate Government' in the present case in terms of Section 2(a)(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act) for making reference of the industrial dispute under Section 10(1) of the Act?"

(2.) The brief facts are that the appellant was appointed on temporary basis as a Fertiliser Clerk by the Managing Director of the Punjab Agro Industries Corporation, Chandigarh on June 12, 1978 and his services were regularised on January 24, 1979. The appellant, however, was retrenched from service vide an order dated February 24, 1983 (Annexure P-1) which was issued from the Head Office situated at Chandigarh but was addressed and served upon the appellant while he was posted at Tarn Taran (Punjab). The appellant challenged the order of termination of his services in Civil Writ Petition No. 1399 of 1983 which was dismissed at motion stage on the ground that alternative and efficacious remedy under the Act was available to the appellant- workman. The appellant thereafter served a demand notice upon the management on June 24, 1983 but the dispute could not be resolved before the Conciliation Officer. Therefore, the appellant sought a reference of the Industrial dispute raised by him from the Administration of Union Territory, Chandigarh. The Chandigarh Administration made the following reference to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Chandigarh on January 8, 1993:

(3.) The respondent-Corporation raised the preliminary objection before the Labour Court, Chandigarh regarding the lack of jurisdiction. Both the parties led evidence. The Labour Court having found that the appellant was employed at the Branch Office of the respondent-Corporation at Tarn Taran and Phagwara (both places in Punjab) and that the retrenchment compensation having been paid to him at Tarn Taran only, the Chandigarh Administration is not the "appropriate Government" who could make reference under Section 10(1) of the Act.