HANSA DUTT PANDEY S/O SH. GOPAL DUTT PANDEY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, U.T., CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Written statement on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 5 has been filed in the Court, copy whereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner. The same is taken on record.

(2.) Counsel for the parties submit that they are ready to address arguments. Counsel for the petitioner contends that in the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 11.10.2000 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh, wherein the reference has been answered against the workman on two grounds, firstly, holding therein that the Labour Court at Chandigarh did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the reference on the ground that the appropriate Government to make reference in the present case was the Government of Haryana as the cause of action has accrued at Panchkula and, therefore, the competent authority to make reference would be the Government of Haryana. Secondly, it has been held by the Labour Court that the demand notice preferred by the workman only asked for recalling or withdrawing of the termination order dated 11.12.1992, which was to take effect from 10.01.1993 and the workman did not challenge the termination order. On this basis, the Labour Court has held that the present reference is not competent because the reference made by the competent authority is different from the demand contained in the demand notice Ex. R-9. He contends that the award passed by the Labour Court is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. In this regard, he submits that the memo dated 11.12.1992, which is a notice informing the workman that his services were no longer required as there is no vacancy of Chowkidar and that one month's notice was being given to him, was issued from Chandigarh. Memo dated 21.12.1992 (Annexure P-9) is again addressed by the Sub- Divisional Engineer, Chandigarh Provincial Sub Division No. 1, Haryana PWD (B&R) Branch, Chandigarh, calling upon the workman to collect the final salary along with the retrenchment compensation payable to the workman on 11.01.1993 or on any other working day of his convenience, also is issued from Chandigarh. Reply to the demand notice dated 04.02.1993 served by the workman was, responded to from Chandigarh by the same authority. Therefore, the cause of action, for all intents and purposes, arose at Chandigarh. He further contends that it is not disputed by the Management that the workman has all through been performing his duties at Chandigarh, thus, the finding, as recorded by the Labour Court vide its impugned award, deserves to be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for respondents No. 2 to 5- Management contends that it is an admitted position that the office of the Sub-Divisional Engineer, PWD (B&R), Haryana, Chandigarh, was shifted to Kothi No. 422, Sector-6, Panchkula in Feb., 1992, therefore, for all intents and purposes after the shifting of the office from Chandigarh to Panchkula, all official work was being performed there. Accordingly, the documents, which have been referred to by the counsel for the petitioner, were all issued from Panchkula and, therefore, the appropriate Government, for making reference under Sec. 10 of the Act, would be the Government of Haryana. Overwhelming evidence has been brought on record both oral and documentary to prove that notice of termination, the order of termination and the compensation as granted to him as per the notice of termination, were all issued, served and granted at Panchkula. He further submits that the workman was well aware of the fact that the office of the Sub-Divisional Engineer, PWD (B&R), Sub-Division No. 1, Chandigarh stood shifted to Kothi No. 422, Sector-6, Panchkula as he had himself preferred a writ petition i.e. CWP No. 7406 of 1992, wherein he had given the address of Panchkula and thereafter, preferred a contempt petition, where again he has given the address of Panchkula. On this basis, he submits that the award passed by the Labour Court is fully justified and in accordance with law.