The Labour Court's jurisdiction is limited to the terms of reference, and it may determine the issue of whether an individual is a 'workman' as defined in law within that framework.

ORDER

CM APPL. 46287/2021

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

REVIEW PET. 214/2021 & CM APPL. 46286/2021

1. This Review Petition has been preferred to seek the review of the judgement dated 17.12.2007, whereby the Letters Patents Appeal preferred by the appellant to assail the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 03.09.2007 was dismissed. The present review petition is barred by limitation. Condonation of delay is sought for a period of 4,959 days. There is absolutely no reasonable cause disclosed for such immense delay in seeking this review. In any event, we have heard learned counsel for the review petitioner/appellant on merits and we do not find merit either in the application seeking condonation of delay or in the review petition as preferred.

2. The appropriate Government had made a reference to the Labour Court on the issue whether the termination of the appellant's services were legal. The exact of the terms of reference reads as follows:

"Whether the services of Sh.V.K. Sharma, S/o Sh. B.D. Sharma, R/o 972, Sector-III, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 022 have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management as if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief along with consequential benefits in terms of existing laws / Government notification and to what other relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

3. Before the Labour Court, the respondent-management raised the defence that the appellant was not a workman as defined in Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Evidence was lead by both the parties on the issues framed, and the finding returned by the Labour Court was that the appellant was not a workman. Consequently, the reference was decided against the appellant. That Award was assailed by the appellant in writ proceedings being W.P. (C) 6487/2007. The learned Single Judge dismissed the same on 03.09.2007. As noticed above, the Division Bench also dismissed the appellant's appeal in LPA No. 1378/2007 on 17.12.2007. Against that decision, the appellant then preferred the Special Leave Petition, vide S.L.P. (C) No. 8644/2008. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 15.04.2008. The present review petition has been preferred more than 13 years after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition.

4. On merits, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/ review petitioner is that the Labour Court had gone beyond its jurisdiction while deciding the issue that the appellant was not a workman. It is argued that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is confined by the terms of reference and it could not be said that the issue as to whether the appellant was a workman, was an incidental issue which the Labour Court would have jurisdiction to decide, while deciding the reference. Therefore, the submission is that once the reference has been made on the premise that the appellant was a workman, the Labour Court could not have gone into the said issue, and the only remedy that the respondent-management had, if it was their case that the appellant was not a workman, was to have the reference amended. In support of the first submission, reliance has been placed on a decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in Vinod Singh Yadav v. M/s. Securitans India Pvt. Ltd. 2018 2 LNJ 632 and on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen & Ors. 1967 1 SCR 882.

5. In support of the second proposition, reliance