Ratio-Such finding can be treated as non est.

The petitioner is Sri Rajagopal Transports Private Limited, Tiruchirapalli. For a considerable length of time, the disputes between the Management and seven workmen thereto were not settled as is seen from the various proceedings that preceded the present writ petition. As early as in 1962, a reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made, on the question whether the non-employment of one V. Kumaraswami, a driver of the petitioner Management, was in order. The Labour Court was of the view that the non-employment was not justified and the petitioner had to come to this Court in Writ Petition No. 199 of 1963, questioning the propriety of the award passed by the Labour Court. The Union also filed a writ petition as against the same award, and both came up for final disposal before Ramakrishnan, J, who quashed the same and remitted the matter for fresh disposal. While passing such an order of remit, the learned Judge made it clear as to what ought to be done by the Labour Court. The position is best stated in the words of the learned Judge himself:-

“I remanded the matter to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court to make a fresh enquiry himself and decide on two points (i) whether the cause of the worker V. Kumaraswami who was dismissed had been sponsored validly by the Labour Union so as to convert it from an individual dispute to a collective dispute, in which event only, the Labour Court under the the law as it then stood before the amendment by Act No. XXXV of 1965 with effect from 1st December, 1965, would have jurisdiction to adjudicate on it; and (2) if he was satisfied that it was an industrial dispute, he could take evidence and decide on the merits whether the dismissal of Kumaraswami was on justifiable gounds or not.”

Thus, the scope of the remand, as high lighted by the learned Judge himself, is that if the Labour Court found that it was not a collective dispute then it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on it and only in cases when it was satisfied that it was a regular industrial dispute it could adjudicate further on the merits. On remand, the Labour Court passed its revised award, holding that the dispute was an individual dispute and not an industrial dispute projected collectively by the Union. After having found that it had no jurisdiction to enter further into a discussion on the merits of the dispute before it and apparently without appreciating the terms of the remand, the Labour Court delved further into the merits and found that the non-employment of Kumaraswami was justified. As against this, the Union filed W.P. No. 3016/66. Ramakrishnan, J., again finally held:

“In my opinion based on the finding that the dispute in this case was individual in character, the Labour Court had clearly no jurisdiction to decide whether the dismissal of Kumaraswami was justified or not.”

He further added:

“But there is also the other finding arrived on facts that the dismissal was related to one of the four charges which was held as proved and that justified the order of dismissal.”

The Union, after the disposal of the writ petition in the manner as above, once again raised a dispute as regards the same V. Kumaraswami and sought a conciliation before the Labour Officer, Tiruchirappalli. The conciliation having failed, the matter ultimately went up to the Government, who, in exercise of their power under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, referred this dispute between the petitioner and V. Kumaraswami for adjudication in the following terms:

“Whether the non-employment of Kumaraswami is justified; if not, to what relief is he entitled ?”

I may also summarise for the purpose of completion, the other matter which also has been referred by the Government in the very same reference as above in connection with the non-employment of six other workers of theirs. As regards these six other workers, Ramakrishnan, J., in Writ Petition No. 3016 of 1966 and others categoricall