KARNAL KAITHAL CO-OPERATIVE TRANSPORT SOCIETY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India are as under: An industrial dispute arose between the petitioners Messrs Karnal-Kaithal Co-operative Transport Society Limited, Karnal, on the one hand, and its employees on the other. The State of Punjab referred the aforesaid dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Jullundur, vide reference No. 36 of 1956. During the pendency of the dispute the petitioner society retrenched Shri Hans Raj, Assistant Blacksmith, who was one of their employees. The said retrenchment having been made in contravention of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, Shri Hans Raj employee filed on 30-11-1956 a complaint under Section 33a of the aforesaid Act which was treated as an industrial dispute and was adjudicated upon by the Industrial Tribunal, Jullundur. The award in respect of this complaint was Made by the Tribunal on 7-6-1957 and was published in the Punjab Government Gazette dated 5-7-1957, vide notification No. 6582/7542-CLab-57/56061. The petitioner Society, feeling aggrieved against the said award, has come up to this Court under Article 228 of the Constitution of India seeking to have the same quashed.

(2.) THE petition was contested by Shri Hans Raj as also by the State of the Punjab who controverted the various allegations made by the petitioners in their petition for writ.

(3.) MR. Hans Raj Sodhi, learned counsel for the petitioners, has urged before me three points which are as under: (1) That the retrenchment of Shri Hans Raj was not connected with the dispute which was the subject-matter of Reference No. 36 of 1956, and the provisions of Section 33 of the Act were, therefore, never contravened; (2) that the dispute between Shri Hans Raj and the petitioners is of an individual nature and does not fall within the ambit of Section 10; and (3) that there was no material at all to record a finding that the retrenchment of Hans Raj had been made as a result of victimisation or that the provisions of Section 33 of the Act had in any way been contravened.