RAMBAGH PALACE HOTEL LTD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner-Management of Rambagh Palace Hotel Limited has filed this writ petition in the pending industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur with the submission that certain issues be decided by the Industrial Tribunal as preliminary issues and the main dispute be not entered into evidence whereas the Industrial Tribunal had in its impugned order dated October 28, 1998 (Annexure-20) has observed that even the issues which the management want to be decided as preliminary issues require evidence and, therefore, to resolve the complete controversy between the parties it was necessary that all the issues as framed should be decided at one and the same time after recording evidence of both sides. The petitioner is aggrieved against this interim order and wants to stall the proceedings pending before the Industrial Tribunal on merits on the reference made by the State of Rajasthan in regard to the dispute raised by the workmen of the petitioner u/S 2-K of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) Even earlier as well, the application was moved for impleading the party to the dispute which was decided by the Labour Court on August 25, 1998, copy of which is attached as Annexure-17, when one Manohar Singh had filed an application for impleading him as the party. The present petitioner had supported him. Similar argument as is being raised now in the writ petition and has been raised in the impugned order Annexure-20 had also been raised in Annexure-17 and it was alleged by the non-petitioner No.4 that the reference now made for adjudication by the Government was not tenable in law and it would adversely affect the alleged so called settlement made earlier. The petitioner management had also taken up a plea in Annexure-17 that earlier settlement made by other group of union was in real settlement and had allowed the non-petitioner No. 4 in the writ petition to be impleaded as party in the dispute and further had held that the reference in question cannot be held to be legal or untenable for the reasons that the non-petitioner No. 3 had raised the demands or had contested the conciliation proceedings before the conciliation officer and pursuing the demand notice in the Industrial Tribunal. It was further held that the reference cannot be deemed to be illegal or not maintainable without recording the evidence.

(3.) This is so observed by the Tribunal in Annexure-20 while deciding the objection of the present management that certain issues be decided as preliminary issues.