KHADI GRAMODYOG PRATISTHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed challenging impugned Award passed by the Labour Court dated February 16, 1993 (Annexure-7).

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the "Appropriate Government" made a reference, vide order dated March 8, 1978, to the Labour Court, Bikaner, as to whether the termination of services of respondent-workman Shiv Shanker Ranga was valid, and if not, to what relief he was entitled to? The claim petition was filed before the Labour Court alleging that the respondent-workman had satisfactorily worked for seven/eight years and his services were terminated in October 1962 without holding an enquiry. Subsequently, he was also involved in a criminal case where he stood acquitted vide judgment and order dated October 16, 1976; and as the termination of services of the workman had not been in consonance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, the same may be declared illegal. The present petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6034/1978 on the ground that the reference had been made by the "Appropriate Government" after sixteen years of the termination of services of the workman and it was not permissible to make a reference at such a belated stage. The said writ petition stood dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated February 6, 1979. Again, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 30/1982 on the ground that the termination was in violation of the settlement/compromise reached between the parties and there was no dispute, therefore, the Labour Court be restrained from proceeding with the matter. The said writ petition also stood dismissed, vide judgment and order dated October 22, 1991, holding that it was not permissible for the petitioner to challenge the issues in piece-meal and the Labour Court would consider as to whether the termination was lawful or not, and even if the termination was found to be lawful, whether any direction for back-wages for the period between the date of termination and date of making the claim before the Competent Authority by the workman, should be made? After giving opportunity to both the parties, the impugned Award has been made on February 16, 1993 (Annexure-7). Hence this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- workman, has raised the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the similar pleas have been taken by the present petitioner in the earlier writ petitions and he cannot be permitted to raise the issues again. The first petition filed by the petitioners stood dismissed on the ground that delay in making the reference would be no ground to interfere, and this judgment is in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum- Processing Service Society Ltd. (1999-I-LLJ-1260) (SC). The second writ petition was also rightly dismissed on the ground that it was not permissible for the employer to challenge the proceedings in piece-meal. This judgment is, also, in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra (1983-II-LLJ-429) (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that once a reference is made, the Tribunal must be allowed to proceed with the case on merits and no attempt should be made to evade decision on merits by raising preliminary objections on any technical ground and drag the workman from Court to Court wasting public time and money. But in both these cases, the controversy involved in the instant case had not been determined, therefore, the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Purohit is not tenable.