HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT HISAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal issue for consideration in the present petition is the validity of a reference by the Government for industrial adjudication before a Labour Court a second time after an initial rejection, without notice to the Management before making the reference. The Labour Court's finding relating to a violation of Section 25-G of the I.D. Act, was the other issue which was answered in favour of the workman.

(2.) On a dispute raised by the workman complaining of alleged illegal termination of service on May 24, 1999, the workman had issued a notice on June 26, 1999. Conciliation was taken up before the Conciliation Officer who, after notice to both the parties, ultimately sent to the Government a failure report. The Government vide its order dated March 6,2000, rejected the reference. It appears that the workman had again applied to the Government raising the very same issue and the Government without any further notice to the Management made a reference on January 9, 2002 under Section 10( 1 )(C) of the I.D. Act to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hisar. On notice from the Labour Court, the Management responded with several objections and contended, inter alia, that the reference was bad, the same having been done without prior notice to the Management. On the merits of the contentions that there had been illegal termination, the contention of the management was that the workman had been engaged on daily-wage basis for the project of establishing industrial sheds at Chickanwas and when his services were no longer required, he was later posted at Sirsa and Julana and when his services were not any longer necessary, his services had been dispensed with. Further contention by the workman was that a junior workman had been retained while he was singled out for termination and that there was violation of Section 25-G. The contention of the Management was that the junior workman Subhash Chander had been working in some other unit and the workman was not entitled to treat his case as illegal termination with reference to workman employed in another place not Chickanwas but at Sirsa. The Labour Court found that even as per the document produced by the Management Exhibit P-2, it had been specifically mentioned that Subhash Chander was junior to the workman, who has been retained in service on the day when the present workman was retrenched. The Labour Court found the admission of the management to be sufficient to uphold the claim of the workman that the termination was bad and directed reinstatement with 50% back-wages.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the management placed as threshold argument that a second reference without notice to the Management was illegal. The contention was that principle of audi alteram partem was a fundamental tenet of natural justice and if it was breached, the reference itself would be bad and the Labour Court did not have the jurisdiction to decide the reference. The learned counsel refers to the decision of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Escorts Limited, Faridabad v. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana (1983) LAB.I.C. page 223, and two other single Bench judgments in Hamco Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer and Others (1991) 3 R.S.J., page 6 and Management of Electronic Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others 1994-II-LLJ-929 in support of his contention. In the decision in Escorts Limited, Faridabad v. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana (supra) the Division Bench of this Court referred to the decision of the Full Bench by the Madras High Court in G. Muthukrishnan v. Administrative Manager, New Horizon Sugar Mills Private Ltd., Pondicherry (1980) 2 MLJ 67 : 1980-I-LLJ-215 (Mad) and decision of the Karnataka High Court in Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Others 1978-I-LLJ-544 (Kant), and held that second reference without notice to the Management was bad in law. The Division Bench also referred to the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner and Others AIR 1978 SC 851 : (1978) 1 SCC 248, and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 : (1978) 1 SCC 248, where the reasonableness of a decision without affording an opportunity to the aggrieved person was taken to be a predominant consideration and administrative decisions rendered without such notices were found to be bad. The Division Bench also distinguished the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avon Services Production Agencies (P) Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal Haryana AIR 1979 SC 170 that held that the power of the appropriate Government to make reference could be exercised second time, but did not however squarely address the issue of want of notice before making the second reference.