ATLAS CYCLE INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. P N THUKRAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Nos. 3244 of 1968, 3245 of 1968 and 3246 of 1968, filed by the Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. , Sonepat, against Shri P. N. Thukral, as also Civil Writ No. 1441 of 1969, M/s. Krishna Embfastners Pvt. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faridabad, which has been directed to be heard with Civil Writ No. 3244 of 1968, as common questions of law arise in all these petitions.

(2.) THE facts in the first three writ petitions are identical and I only state the facts of Civil Writ No. 3244 of 1968. The Governor of Haryana, by an order dated October 9, 1967, referred the industrial dispute regarding the termination of services of respondent 2 for adjudication to the Labour Court, Rohtak. The parties filed their respective statements before the Labour Court. The management raised objections to the constitution of the Labour Court and the appointment of its Presiding Officer, on the following grounds: (I) After the formation of the State of Haryana, no notification has been issued constituting the Labour Court for the State of Haryana and, therefore, the present reference and proceedings are without jurisdiction. (II) The Labour Court has come to an automatic end because the appointment of Shri Hans Raj Gupta, the predecessor of the present Presiding Officer has been held to be invalid. (III) There was no Presiding Officer in this Court on the date of reference because the appointment of the Presiding Officer as required by Rule 5 of the Industrial Disputes (Punjab) Rules, 1958, had not been notified in the official gazette. (IV) The notification dated July 2, 1968, notifying the appointment of the present Presiding Officer does not vest any jurisdiction in the Court because Section 8 of the Industrial Disputes Act is not attracted, there being no vacancy which could be filled up and it could not be filled up with retrospective effect. Another objection that was taken was that Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act) was ultra virus and no reference could be made of the individual dispute between the petitioner and respondent 2. Section 2-A was added to the Act by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1965 (Act 35 of 1965 ). On the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Labour Court on February 27, 1968 : (1) Whether the objection regarding constitutional validity of S. 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act can be raised in this Court ? (2) Whether the reference is invalid for the reasons mentioned in Cls. (b) and (c) of the preliminary objection? (3) Whether the termination of services of Shri Prem Pal Bedi is justified and in order ? If not to what relief he is entitled?

(3.) AN application was made by the management on August 29, 1968 raising the objections to the constitution of the Labour Court and the appointment of its Presiding Officer, as set out above. Another application was made on September 17, 1968, in which a request was made to decide the preliminary objections in the first instance as they related to the jurisdiction of the Court to decide the reference. It was also pleaded in this application that respondent 2 had been dismissed after a proper enquiry and respondent 2 had raised a number of objections to the enquiry to which a reply had been filed by the management. It was submitted that the management had a right to lead evidence on merits if it was held that the enquiry was not proper and the question whether evidence on merits should be led or not would arise only after the Court gave a finding whether a domestic enquiry was proper or not. It was, therefore, submitted that a decision should be given by the Labour Court as to whether domestic enquiry was proper or not before calling upon the management to lead evidence to prove that the termination of the services of respondent 2 was in order. The learned Labour Court, by order dated September 28, 1968, decided that his appointment as the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Rohtak, was in order and the reference to that court had been validly made. With regard to the vires of Section 2-A of the Act, it was held that the court had no jurisdiction to go into the matter and that the petitioner-company could seek this remedy in the High Court. With regard to the request of the management to decide about the domestic enquiry being fair and proper before calling upon it to lead evidence on the point whether the termination of the services of respondent 2 was justified or not, it was held that the management had made this request after the lapse of seven months from the date on which the issues were framed and that the decision of the reference could not be made piece-meal. A further reason was stated that the decision of a reference made to the Labour Court is not an announced to the parties but is sent to the Government for publication in the Government Gazette and, therefore, the giving of piece-meal award will not be correct. It was further observed that the management knew whether the domestic enquiry held by it was proper or not and it was for the management to lead or not to lead evidence o the merits of the termination of he services of the respondent. The Labour Court thus refused to decide the point with regard to the propriety and fairness of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue. The present writ petition has been filed questioning the correctness of the decision on the preliminary points canvassed before the learned Labour Court. This writ petition was filed on October 16, 1968 ad was admitted on the following day. Further proceedings before the Labour Court were stayed.