The reference of an industrial dispute for adjudication should be liberally construed, and the Labour Court or Tribunal should examine the pleadings, documents, and background of the dispute to determine its exact nature. The mere wording of the reference is not decisive in determining its tenability.

JUDGMENT :

V.A. Mohta, J.

The First Labour Court, Nagpur, by Award dated October 10, 1985, quashed as untenable the following reference made to it u/s 10(1)(c) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act) by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur :

"Shri S. B. Hatwar, who had been terminated from the employment of M/s. Saluja Kirana Stores, Rationing Dukan, Untkhana Chowk, Nagpur, should be reinstated with payment of back wages and continuity of service, with effect from August 8, 1982."

Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed by the workman.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the language of the dispute and the undisputed background under which it was referred for adjudication, it seems very clear to us that the impugned Award cannot be sustained since it is based on too hypertechnical and a pedantic view of the matter and sacrifices substance for the form, an approach impermissible in labour jurisprudence.

3. What is the undisputed background ? The petitioner workman was in the employment of M/s. Saluja Kirana Stores, Nagpur Respondent No. 2 for a number of years. Sometime prior to August 1982, there was a dispute between the parties over demand for higher wages by the workman. According to the petitioner when he went to the shop to join duties on August 8, 1982 he was not allowed to resume duties by the employer saying that his services were no more required. The case of the second respondent was that the petitioner did not turn up on duty on August 8, 1982, as alleged, and had voluntarily left the services. Both reiterated their respective positions, first in the exchange of notice and later on before the Conciliation Officer before whom the workman's demand for reinstatement and back wages was sent for settlement. No settlement between the parties could be reached and consequently the Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report u/s 12(4) of the I.D. Act to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, who, after considering the said report 'in respect of the dispute over the demand, mentioned in the Schedule' referred the said dispute for adjudication. Both parties reiterated once again their respective stands before the Labour Court by filing statement between February and August 1983 and the matter was fixed for evidence. On October 9, 1985, the Respondent No. 2 filed an application raising for the first time a preliminary objection to the reference on the ground that it was untenable in law and prayed for its summary disposal on that ground alone. Respondent No. 2's contention was that there was abundant material to come to the conclusion that there was no termination by the employer, the workman had voluntarily abandoned the service and in making reference the Deputy Commissioner of Labour had lost light of the defence of the employer.

4. The Labour Court upheld the preliminary objection raised by employer that the reference was vitiated due to non-application of mind by the Deputy-Commissioner since it does not refer to the defence of the employer denying the termination and the workman having voluntarily abandoned the service. In coming to this conclusion, reliance was placed upon the decision rendered by a Goa Bench of this Court in the case of Sitaram Vishnu Shirodkar Vs. The Administrator, Government of Goa and others.

5. Section 10(1)(c) of the I.D. Act empowers the appropriate Government to refer the existing or apprehended industrial dispute or any matter appearing to be connected or relevant to the dispute relating to any item specified in the Second Schedule to a Labour Court for adjudication. Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act defined the term 'industrial dispute'. Any dispute or difference between the employer and individual workman connected with or arising out of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination is deemed to be an industrial dispute u/s 2-A of the I.D. Act. The definition of 'industrial dispute' is itself wide enough to include