D. K. SETH, SOUMITRA PAL

( 1 ) IN this appeal three grounds have been taken. The first ground was that the Central Government is the appropriate Government and therefore, the reference made by the State Government was incompetent. The second ground was that the respondent was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such the learned Tribunal could to have assume jurisdiction and therefore the award was a nullity and is of no effect. The third ground was that it was a discharge simpliciter without stigma in terms of the contract and as such it cannot be held to be an illegal termination without holding an enquiry.

( 2 ) ALTERNATIVELY, it was argued that the fact finding body had undertaken an enquiry and the same should be equated with a full-fledged domestic enquiry.

( 3 ) THE shares are held by the Union of India through the President. The policy decisions re-taken in respect of the company by the Central government, therefore, according to Mr. Chakraborty it comes within the definition of Section 2 (a) (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such the reference made by the State Government is incompetent.

( 4 ) THE fa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document