LAL SINGH (DIED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE MANMOHAN SINGH Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the last date when the instant writ petition came up for hearing, none had appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 Even today none has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2. It is in these circumstances that this case is being taken up today for final hearing, in the absence of any representation on behalf of respondent No. 2,

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner workman, that he was inducted into the service of the respondent No. 2 as a workman in September 1967, whereafter he continued to discharge his duties uninterruptedly, on monthly wages of Rs. 340/ - till his services were eventually terminated, arbitrarily and unilaterally, by the respondents management on May 01, 1982. Dissatisfied with the action of the respondent -management in terminating his services, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute by issuing a notice under Section 2 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1947 Act'). On the failure of conciliation proceedings, the appropriate government referred the dispute raised by the petitioner to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the Labour Court), under Section 10(i)(c) of the 1947 Act, on May 17, 1983. After affording an opportunity to the rival parties to lead evidence, the Labour Court answered the reference of the dispute raised by the petitioner workman, through an award dated May 21, 1985. It would be pertinent to mention, that therein the aforesaid award the claim of the petitioner was not accepted. It is, therefore, that the award of the Labour Court dated May 21, 1985 has been impugned by the petitioner -workman through the instant writ petition,

(3.) IN order to examine the veracity of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner one needs only to refer to the report submitted by. the Labour -cum -Conciliation Officer -III, Ludhiana, on the failure of conciliation proceedings conducted by him. The aforesaid report has been extracted in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 The same is reproduced hereunder: -