PUNJAB STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, PATIALA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ petition, petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Labour court dated 16.09.1997 (Annexure P-5).

(2.) Respondent No. 2 was stated to have been appointed as a Senior Scale Stenographer on 18.08.1988. On 17.05.1991 Government took decision to transfer services with the Notified Area Committee of Mohali due to which workers service conditions have been disrupted while abolishing 22 posts on 27.01.1992. One of the post abolished and consequently respondent-workman service was retrenched. Thus, petitioner raised a demand notice in the month of July, 1993 and thereafter, reference was made. The labour court proceeded to pass award in favour of the respondent-workman. Hence present petition in challenging the award of the labour court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that labour court has erred in not appreciating sub-Section 2 of Section 25J of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short I.D.Act). In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner relied on two decisions reported in 1978 Lab I.C.1267 titled as Nand Lal v. Union of India paras 5 and 6 and Bhaskaran v. Sub-Divisional Officer reported in 1982 ILLJ 248 paras 6 and 20. The aforesaid contention has been taken with reference to the fact that para 3.1.12 of Punjab State Electronics Development and Production Corporation Limited Service Rules which were issued w.e.f. 01.04.1979 read with the Punjab State Reservation Policy are not applicable in the present case since labour court has relied on aforesaid provisions read with the reservation policy.