SHAMBHU NATH VAID Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts, out of which this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution arises, are as given below.

(2.) THE parties are agreed that Ram Kishan, respondent 3, was an employee of the petitioner. The petitioner is a vaid and proprietor of D. A. V. Ayurvedio Pharmacies at Amritsar, Delhi, Mussorie and Dehra Dun. The Dehra Dun branch appears to have been closed during the pendency of this petition. The petitioner avers that respondent 3 was employed by him in his Dehra Dun branch on or about, 10 June 1955, and thereafter was transferred to his Amritsar branch where he worked from 10 June 1955 to 13 July 1957. Respondent 3 in his return accepts his employment in the Amritsar branch of the petitioner but denies that he was initially employed at Dehra Dun and transferred from there. But that is not going to be a material matter in the consideration of this petition. On 14 July 1957, the petitioner transferred respondent 3 from Amritsar to the branch of his establishment at Mussorie. Respondent 3 was given one week's leave at his request. According to the petitioner, respondent 3 did not join at Mussorie. There is some dispute on facts between the petitioner and respondent 3 on this aspect of the matter. It appears that the labour and conciliation officer at Amritsar intervened and on 8 August 1957, a compromise was arrived at between the parties whereunder the transfer order of respondent 3 was cancelled by the petitioner and he was asked to resume duty at Amritsar. According to the petitioner, respondent 3 refused to join duty on the ground that he will not just maintain the stock register unless he was made In charge of the entire stock. Respondent 3 gives a slightly different version of this part of the case, but that again is not going to be material as will appear presently.

(3.) IN the end on 11 April 1958, by notification No. 2352-C-Lab. 58/11840, the Punjab government made the following order of reference of the dispute between the petitioner and respondent 3 under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the Labour Court, punjab: whereas the Governor of the Punjab is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the workmen and the management of the D. A. V. Ayurvedic Pharmacy, Akali Market, Amritsar, and Mall Road, Muasorie, regarding the matters hereinafter appearing; and whereas the Governor of the Punjab considers it desirable to refer the dispute for adjudication; now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Governor of the Punjab hereby refers to the Labour court, Punjab, constituted under Section 7 of the said Act, the matters specified below being either matters in dispute or matters relevant to or connected with the dispute as between the said management and the workman for adjudication :-Whether Sri Ram Kishan be reinstated and compensated for the period of his forced unemployment ? the dispute came before the labour court on 24 April 1958, on which date respondent 3 put in his claim and the petitioner put in his written statement. In his written statement the petitioner objected to the jurisdiction of the tribunal on the ground that his concern was not an industrial concern but an ordinary shop. He took other pleas in his written statement which are not material for the present purpose. The case was next to be taken up by the labour court on 14 May 1958. The labour court received on 9 May 1968 an additional written statement by the petitioner and in that additional written statement the petitioner says that the D. A. V. Ayurvedic Pharmacy Agency has its head office at Delhi with branches at Mussorie and Amritsar; the reference pertaining to the Mussorie branch is incompetent nor has the labour court jurisdiction to deal with an industry being carried on at a place outside the State. The jurisdiction of the labour court was then questioned upon this ground.