MANAGEMENT OF BARAREE COKE PLANT Vs. THEIR WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case was filed originally as a Civil Revision, but subsequently, at the request of the parties, converted into an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) On the 25th of June, 1965, the Governor of Bihar, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) referred to the Labour Court, Ranchi, constituted by the State Government Notification No. III/DI-12047/57 L-12149, dated the 26th July, 1957, a dispute between some of the workmen and the petitioner employer regarding the termination of services of workmen (named in the order of reference) by the management. The dispute was taken up for hearing by Shri T.P. Choudhury, the then Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi. But the employer raised several preliminary objections, two of which related to his jurisdiction to proceed with tha reference. These two alone were pressed before us in this application and will be dealt with in due course. Before the Labour Court the Secretary of the Union appeared and urged that the objections raised by the employer were merely a clever attempt to drag on the reference. The Labour Court overruled all the objections by its order dated the 8th November, 1965. Then the employer came to this Court with a Civil Revision which was admitted In due course. The employer also succeeded in getting stay of the further proceedings in the Labour Court. Thus, more man two year have elapsed since the reference of the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. Such delay may not adversely affect the employer but it is bound to cause serious harassment to the dismissed workmen, because having inadequate financial support they will be compelled to seek employment elsewhere during this period. Consequently, by the time the reference is taken up for hearing, the whole question may become somewhat academic. It is obvious that such dilatory tactics on the part of the employer should be severely discouraged.

(3.) The two important questions of jurisdiction urged by Mr. Balbhadra Prasad Singh for the petitioner may be formulated as follows: