CRYSTAL ELECTRICAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Crystal Electrical carrying on business at E-142, Industrial Shed, Focal Point, Ludhiana, through its sole proprietor Devinder Singh has tiled the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the award dated August 3, 1981 (Annexure P-1) published in Punjab Govt. Gazette on October 23,1981.

(2.) THE case set up by the petitioner is that Respondent No. 3 Ram Dulare raised an industrial issue with the petitioner as well as Respondent No. 4 M/s. Crystal Electrical on the ground that his services had been illegally terminated. The dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Ludhiana who vide his award dated August 3, 1981 published in Punjab Govt. Gazette on October 23, 1981 had ordered the reinstatement of Respondent No. 3 with 25 per cent back wages. According, to the petitioner the award is illegal without jurisdiction and against the evidence on record because it contravenes the provisions of Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. According to the petitioner, Respondent No. 3 was only entitled to 2 months' wages and the Labour Court was not justified in ordering the reinstatement of Respondent No. 3 with back wages. Respondent No. 2 Labour Court had no jurisdiction at all in this matter and the right forum for Respondent No. 3 was to approach the Court of Judicial Magistrate under Section 22 of the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958. In the alternative, it has been pleaded that Respondent No. 2 at the most could grant relief in terms of Section 22 of the said Act. Even otherwise, Respondent Nq. 3 had only worked for 3 months with the petitioner as admitted by the Labour Court in its award. In these circumstances. Respondent No. 3 was not entitled to any retrenchment compensation as required under Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also submitted by the petitioner that even if it is assumed that Respondent No. 3 was retrenched from his services he could not get reinstatement as he had worked less than 240 days and by giving the award Annexure P. I the Labour Court had exercised wrong jurisdiction.

(3.) NOTICE of the writ petition was given to Respondent No. 3. Nobody has given appearance on behalf of this respondent and in these circumstances, the present writ petition has been disposed of with the assistance of Mr. Vi-jay Pal Dogra, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner.