KRISHAN LAL Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 5823 of 1985 and Civil Writ Petition No. 1277 of 1986 as the petitioner in both the petitions is the same person and the orders impugned therein involve similar questions of law.

(2.) THE facts in brief are taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 5823 of 1985. The petitioner was employed as a conductor with respondent No. 2 and had put in more than 24 years of service. His services were terminated and an industrial dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"), to the effect whether termination of services of the petitioner was justified and in order, and if not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation he was entitled. The Labour Court made its award dated 16th January, 1984, annexure P. 1, holding that termination of his services was not justified or in order but since the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation, it was held that he was not entitled to reinstatement. He was instead awarded wages up to 25th December, 1980, on which date he attained the age of 58 years, i. e. the age of superannuation. It was further directed that respondent No. 2 shall pay to the petitioner Rs. 4,272 as his dues up to October, 1977. This award was brought into question by respondent No. 2 by filing a Civil Writ Petition No. 4672 of 1984 in this Court which was, however, dismissed in limine by a Division Bench, vide order dated 15th February, 1985, annexure P. 2.

(3.) THE petitioner filed an application under Section 33c (2) of the Act for computation of his wages from October, 1977, to December, 1980, in accordance with the direction given in the award, annexure P. 1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, respondent No. 1, without going into the merits of the case dismissed this application, vide order dated 15th October, 1985, annexure P-3, holding that it was not maintainable. It was observed therein that since respondent No. 2 is a motor transport undertaking and the petitioner was a workman employed under it, he was covered by the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, which is a special enactment and is bound to prevail over the Act. Following a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Delhi Transport Corporation v. D. D. Gupta 1984 II LLJ 79 it was held that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the application of the petitioner. Aggrieved against this order, the present writ petition has been filed by the workman-petitioner. He has questioned the legality of the order, annexure P-3, and has sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the same.