STATE OF J&K Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition by the State of Jammu and Kashmir challenges the legality of the order of the Jammu and Kashmir Industrial Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal", dated 13 -1 -1973 where by the Tribunal held that the dispute between the Government Transport Undertaking and respondent No. 2 is an Industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and is, therefore triable by the Tribunal. The manner in which the dispute arose, the circumstances in which the reference was made and the facts which led to the filing of the present writ petition, are given below in a narrow compass to appreciate -correctly the points which arise for consideration in this petition : - Respondent No. 2 was serving as a conductor in the Government Transport Undertaking up to 29 -1 -1969. He was discharged from service on 29 -1 -1969, according to the State, after observing all the provisions of the rules governing his service conditions. After his discharge respondent No, 2 moved the Government and sought a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" to respondent No. 1 for adjudication. The Government thereupon made a reference on 29 -5 -1971 holding that an Industrial dispute existed between the Management of the Jammu and Kashmir Government Transport Undertaking, Jammu and respondent No. 2. The dispute between the parties aforesaid were described in the order of reference in the following words : -

(2.) THE case has been contested on behalf of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 has not chosen to appear and contest this petition. Respondent No. 2 in his objections has supported the order of the Tribunal. In addition it has been contended that the Government having made the reference under section 10 could not challenge the validity of the same on the ground that no industrial dispute existed between the parties.

(3.) IT has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the transport business carried on by the Government Transport Undertaking is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2(J) of the Act and, therefore, an employee of the Government Transport Undertaking which Undertaking is a permanent department of the Government cannot be said to be a workman within the meaning of Section 2(S) of the Act. In this premise the argument has been built that there was no industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(K) of the Act" and therefore the reference made by the Government under Section 10 of the Act to respondent No. 1 was illegal and invalid and thus did not confer any jurisdiction on respondent No. 1 to entertain the dispute or to adjudicate upon it.