SINGHAL AND CO Vs. HEM RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS the Labour Court precluded from going into question which are incidental to the dispute referred to it Under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this bunch of 11 writ petitions viz. CWP Nos. 5773, 8028, 9301, 9305, 9306, 9997 to 10000 of 1988; C. W. P. Nos. 5881 and 5882 of 1989. Counsel for the parties have referred to the facts as averred in CWP No. 9304 of 1988. These may be briefly noticed.

(2.) ON July 13, 1988, the State Govt. found that there existed a dispute between Mr. Hem Raj, the workman and the Management of M/s Singhal and Company, Goniana Road, Bhatinda. It, therefore, passed an order Under Section 10 of the Act whereby the Labour Court was asked to adjudicate upon the following questions: " Whether termination of services of Sh. Hem Raj workman is justified and in Order ? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation is he entitled ?". It was also observed that the Labour Court shall consider "the matters relevant to or connected with the dispute as between the said management and the workman for adjudication -. " On receipt of notice from the Labour Court, the management filed a written statement. It inter-alia pleaded that "the relationship of employee and employer does not exist between the parties and as such this Hon'ble Court has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present case. " Thereafter, on October 4,1988, the management filed another application by which it requested the Labour Court to frame an issue - "whether relationship of employee and employer exists between the parties ?" The request of the management was declined by the Labour Court vide its order dated October 4, 1988. The Labour Court held that in view of the terms of reference it cannot go into the question whether the workman " is an employee of the respondent. " Consequently, it rejected the application. Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, the management has approached this Court through the present writ petition. It prays that the order dated October 4, 1988, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P5 with the writ petition, be quashed. In the alternative, it has been prayed that the State Govt. be directed to recall the reference.

(3.) COUNSEL for the parties have been heard.