The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of the jurisdiction of the labour court in adjudicating disputes concerning union employees and the incompetence of the labour court to entertain a dispute after the termination had been held valid by the central administrative tribunal.

( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order dated April 16, 1997 in w. p. no. 37388/1995 as modified by subsequent order dated November 3, 1998 in c. p. 989/1997, whereby the learned single judge has affirmed the judgment and award of the labour court, hubli, directing reinstatement of the respondent but by restricting back wages only from the date of award i. e. April 21, 1995 till the date of reinstatement as against full back wages from the date of retrenchment but otherwise with continuity of service and other consequential benefits.

( 2 ) THE questions which have fallen for our consideration are of vital consequence being related to jurisdiction of the labour courts functioning in the state. First we may notice the bare minimum facts which are relevant for the above purpose. The respondent was employed as a casual worker on the muster roll of the telephone exchange at belgaum from September 10, 1985. But keeping in view the subsequent policy decision taken by the government of india, the services of all the casual workers were terminated by following the statutory requirements contemplated under Section 25-f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the act ).

( 3 ) IN the case of respondent, one month's notice was issued to him on October 28, 1998 (Annexure-B) clearly stating therein that on expiration of the said period from the date of receipt of notice he stands retrenched. Retrenchment compensation amounting to Rs. 1,143/- was also paid to him on December 19, 1988 (Annexure-C ). After receiving of the compensation, he filed application being o. a. No. 1815/1988 before the central administrative tribunal questioning his termination from service. But the same was dismissed by the tribunal on merits by an order dated June 19, 1989 (Annexure-D) upholding the order of termination as valid. Anyhow, the tribunal made an observation that the department should make attempt to rehabilitate the respondent in a regular appointment with such expedition as may be possible in the circumstances of the case.

( 4 ) THE respondent employee, by suppressing the material facts regarding his approaching the central administrative tribunal and of having already received the retrenchment compensation as per Section 25-f of the act after due notice, raised a dispute before the labour court, hubli, by filing a complaint on April 28, 1989. On service of the notice, the appellant assistant engineer appeared and filed his objections on April 9,1990 setting out the entire details relating to termination of the respondent's service after notice, payment of compensation and affirmation of his termination order by the central administrative tribunal. Curiously, despite the said facts having been brought on record, the labour court passed an award dated April 21, 1995 directing reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages, which, on being challenged before this court in w. p. no. 37388/1995 was affirmed subject to modification in respect of only back wages as already noticed above.

( 5 ) IN our opinion, keeping in view the facts of the present case, the following two material questions touching upon the jurisdiction of the labour court clearly emerge for consideration (I) whether an industrial dispute concerning an employee of the union is at all entertainable under Section 10 (4-a) of the act by a labour court? (II) whether an employee/workman can invoke jurisdictions of both the administrative tribunal as well as the labour court assailing the order of his termination/retrenchment?reg. Question no. 1

( 6 ) SECTION 2 (a) of the act defines appropriate government. It inter alia, provides that in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the central government, the central government will be the appropriate government and in relation to any other industrial dispute not covered by sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Section 2, it will be the state government. The