TARSEM SINGH Vs. JUDGE LABOUR COURT & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing award dated 16-11-1992 and prayed for direction to reinstate the petitioner back in service. It is also prayed that respondents may be directed to make payment of salary and grant him benefits under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consider his case prayed that the respondents may be directed to grant his semi-permanent status in service upon completion of two years.

(2.) According to facts of the case, the petitioner was initially appointed in the month of August 1981 on the post of Chowkidar on daily-rated basis and his services were terminated with effect from 1-8-1994. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Sriganganagar and, after failure of the conciliation proceedings the matter was sent to the appropriate Government. The appropriate Government referred the matter to the learned Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner for adjudication of the following question :

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned Judge, Labour Court has committed error of law exceeding his jurisdiction while passing the order that if, on 30-6-1985, the date on which North-East CAD Bhakra Sub- Division was abolished, any retrenchment was made after following Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act in respect of other employees then petitioner shall be entitled for the same relief under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act because once the reference is made by the appropriate Government only to adjudicate upon the validity of the termination of the services of the petitioner with effect from 18-1984, further jurisdiction to travel beyond the reference cannot be assumed by the Labour Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the services of the workman petitioner were illegally terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act then it is obvious that the sub-Division where the petitioner workman was appointed was in existence on the date of such illegal termination. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, if on a subsequent date the said Sub-Division was abolished, the learned Labour Court had nothing to do with that aspect of the matter inasmuch as it was not the subject-matter of the reference made for adjudication to the Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the authoritative pronouncements of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, the approach of the Labour Court is totally erroneous. It is prayed that once it has been held by the Judge, Labour Court that petitioner workman's services were terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act then the workman was to be reinstated in service with full back wages.