A R TRAG Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. D. Tantrey, submits that the impugned award is passed by the Industrial Tribunal (Labour Court) Jandk Srinagar, after the dispute between the parties was referred to it by the Government on the question of determination of the legality or otherwise of the termination of services of respondent No. 2 by Director Sericulture and the relief if any, to which the petitioner was entitled to. The Tribunal has found the termination illegal and respondent has been on entitlement awarded back wages on contest. The respondents have appeared before the Tribunal and participated in the proceedings. It was only after contest that the award has been passed. Mr. Tantrey further submits that the orders have been passed within canopy of Industrial Disputes Act and within jurisdiction by the Tribunal.

(2.) MR. Wani, submits that the impugned award is without jurisdiction, in as much as, on merits the claimant respondent No. 2 was a seasonal labour and not in the employment of the sericulture, where the practice is to engage labourers on seasonal basis. Sericulture is not industry and therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass the award. Admittedly, it is the Government of Jandk through Commissioner/secretary to Govt. Labour and Employment Department, the Administrative Department of the Sericulture Department, which has made the reference to Industrial Tribunal qua the legality or otherwise of the action of the Director Sericulture in terminating the services of respondent No. 2, (Mohd Yousuf Mir) and the relief, if any, which could be given to the said person. The reference has been made expressly under Section 10, Sub-Section (1) Clause (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal (Labour Court) constituted under Notification SRO No. 767 dated 31. 10. 1972. For the purpose notification SRO 69 dated 28. 3. 2000 has been issued. The record shows that the reference has been made after following the due procedure and on taking steps under the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) THE Industrial Tribunal, (Labour Court) was seized of the reference and the Government, as also the Sericulture Department participated in the reference and its proceedings as shown by the Labour court record and upon hearing an enquiry, the impugned award was passed, and went against Sericulture Department rather than the Govt. that the Directorate of Sericulture awoke to challenge the very jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal/labour Court. The objections as raised above by Mr. M. A. Wani, touch the merits of the case rather than the question of jurisdiction. When the matter is determined on enquiry on evidence after parties participated in the proceedings or in any case had the opportunity to participate in the proceedings and lead evidence, it hardly appears appropriate or just in the facts and circumstances of the case, to interfere with the impugned award in exercise of writ jurisdiction. On the above view, case is not made out for admittance to hearing. Dismissed in limine. Disposed of.