Back
2005 Supreme(Raj) 187
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Sunil Kumar Garg
Pappu Ram - Appellant
Versus
The Labour Court, Jodhpur - Respondent
D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 300 of 2004
Decided On : 01/24/2005
Mr. Girish Sankhala, for the Appellant.
Mr. H.R. Soni, Additional Government Advocate.
The main legal principle established is that industrial disputes referred under the Industrial Disputes Act must be adjudicated on their merits for the maintenance of industrial peace, and 'no dispute awards' are not valid under the Act.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act - Termination of Services - Section 10(1)(c) - Second Schedule - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the termination of the appellant-workman's services, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal issued a notice for hearing, but the appellant did not appear, leading to a 'no dispute award'. The appellant challenged this order through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal erred in closing the reference without adjudication of the dispute, as industrial disputes referred under Section 10(1)(c) are meant to be adjudicated on merit for the maintenance of industrial peace.
Issues: The key issue was whether the Tribunal's 'no dispute award' was valid and whether the reference should have been adjudicated on merit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, references are meant for adjudication on merit, and the Tribunal's failure to do so was erroneous. The court emphasized that industrial disputes are referred for the maintenance of industrial peace and must be adjudicated on their merits.
Final Decision: The special appeal was allowed, the order of the Single Judge was set aside, and the Tribunal was directed to adjudicate the reference on merit.
N.N. Mathur & Sunil Kumar Garg, J.-This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21st February, 2004 dismissing the writ petition.
2. A reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) for adjudication of a dispute in terms of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act on the question of termination of the services of the appellant-workman. The Tribunal issued a notice to the appellant fixing the date of hearing 15.1999 but neither the appellant nor his representative put his appearance on that day or any subsequent dates. Thus, the Tribunal by order dated 111.1999 passed no dispute award. The appellant-workman filed an application for restoration of the reference, but the same was dismissed by order dated 10.2002. The appellant challenged the said order and the award by way of petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. In support of the contention to the effect that the Tribunal instead of adjudicating the dispute referred could not have closed the matter simply by expressing its inability to record the finding saying "no dispute award" has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Virendra Bhandari vs.
R.S.R.T.C. & Ors., reported in JT 2002 (5) SC 21. The learned Single Judge distinguished the Virendra Bhandaris case on the ground that after passing of "no dispute award" by the Labour Court the Government made another reference on the same question, whereas, in the instant case no such reference was again made by the State Government.
3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the impugned order, we are unable to agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. In Virendra Bhandaris case the Apex Court has in terms held that when there is no adjudication on merit it cannot be said that the industrial dispute does not exist. Court further observed thus:-
"What is to be borne in mind in proceedings of this nature is that the Industrial disputes are referred to the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal for maintenance of Industrial peace and not merely for adjudication of the dispute between two private parties".
4. The learned Single Judge has erroneously distinguished the binding decision of the Apex Court in Virendra Bhandaris case on the ground that in the said case after the Tribunal made "no dispute award", second reference was made by the State Government. The ratio laid down in the said case is that once the reference is made to the Tribunal it has to be answered on merit. There is nothing like "no dispute award". The learned Single Judge has lost sight in considering that the Tribunal was in error in closing the reference without adjudication of the dispute referred by the State Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
.5. Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act empower the appropriate Government to refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute if it relates to any matter specified in Second Schedule to a Labour Court for adjudication. The word reference has not been defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, in order to understand the exact meaning of reference we may look to the dictionary meaning.
6. As per the Concise Oxford Dictionary the word reference means:-
"the referring of a matter for decision or settlement or consideration to some authority".
7. In Blacks Law Dictionary reference means:-"A person to whom a cause pending in a Court has referred by the Court, to take testimony, hear the parties, and report thereon to the Court".
8. In Law of Lexicon of British India complied by Ramnatha Aiyer, reference has been stated to mean:-"Sending of pending case for some question therein by the Court in which it is pending to a private person or some other Tribunal to hear and determine the cause of the question".
9. Thus, when an appropriate Government makes a reference to the Ind
