JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. In this writ petition as filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing of the award dated 18.11.2021 as passed in I.D Case No. 2 of 2010 by the Learned Labour Court, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair. By the impugned award the said Labour Court while answering the reference as made by the appropriate Govt. found no illegality regarding termination / retrenchment of 19 workmen who were working under the respondent society.

2. For effective adjudication of the instant writ petition the facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition is required to be dealt with in a nut shell.

3. On 05.12.2007 the petitioner the workers’ union approached the Labour Commissioner, Andaman & Nicobar Islands for taking appropriate steps for regularizing the services of its members who according to the said union are the workers of the respondent society, grant of bonus and for implementing the minimum wages. In course of conciliation proceedings, 23 workers who according to the writ petitioner are the members of the said union were terminated from the service on and from 01.11.2008. Subsequently, 6 workers out of 25 workers have been reinstated but 19 workers’ termination order was not recalled. According to the writ petitioner union, such action on the part of the respondent society tantamounts to violation of Section 25-F, 25-G, 25-H, 25-N and the other provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act in short).

4. It is the matter of record that, since the labour dispute could not be resolved in conciliation proceeding, the appropriate Govt. within the meaning of the said Act made a reference to the Learned Labour Court under Section 10 (1) read with Section 12 (1) and 10 (2)(a) and the schedule of the reference is quoted below in verbatim:-

“Whether the action on the part of Secretary, Malabar Cooperative Coconut Farming Society, Ograbraj by terminating the 19 workers (list of workers is enclosed as Annexure 1) from their services on different dates is legal and justified. If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

5. The Learned Labour Court while answering the said reference passed the judgement dated 18.11.2021 which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

6. In course of hearing Mr. Binnu Kumar, Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner draws attention of this Court to the judgement under challenge. It is contended that on comparative study of the schedule of reference and the issues as framed by the Learned Labour Court in the form of ‘Points for determination’ it would reveal that while passing the impugned judgement the said Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction for which writ of certiorari may be issued for quashing the same. It is further submitted that the said Labour Court is not supposed to act as a Civil Court and therefore, while answering a reference the said Court ought to have restrict itself within the ambit and the scope of reference and thus, the findings of the said Labour Court in relation to the points for determination is excessive.

7. Mr. Binnu Kumar, Learned Advocate in course of his argument put much emphasis upon the Section 12 (4) and (5) of the said Act. It is submitted further on behalf of the writ petitioner that though in answering the reference the said Labour Court has come to a finding that the 19 retrenched workmen were working directly under the respondent society but for the reason best known to the said Labour Court it has come to a faulty finding that before him no materials could be placed that the said retrenched workmen were in continuous service i.e for a period of 240 days within the meaning of Section 25 B of the said Act. It is further submitted that the condition precedent for retrenchment of workmen who were in continuous service as envisaged under Section 25- F were also not complied with. It is thus s