Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Premchand Jain and S.S.Kang JJ.
Ramlal
Versus
Labour Court
Decided On : MARCH 11, 1986
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 10 - APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT - DETERMINATION - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - REFERENCE FOR ADJUDICATION - JURISDICTION - CHANGE OF MIND BY APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT - LEGALITY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an employee of the Punjab State Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank Limited, was dismissed from service. He served a demand notice on the Chairman of the Bank, who was not his employer. The Labour Commissioner, Punjab, informed the appellant that the Punjab Government was not the appropriate Government in respect of his case. The appellant then approached the Home Secretary of Chandigarh Administration, who declined to refer the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court. The appellant filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that he continued to be in service of the bank and the order terminating his services were illegal and void. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the orders terminating the appellant's services were illegal and void, but that the appellant's suit was not maintainable against the bank. The Labour Commissioner, Punjab, subsequently referred the industrial dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court under Sec.10 (1) (a) of the Act. The Labour Court held that the Punjab Government was the appropriate Government and had the jurisdiction to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication, but that the reference was bad as the workman had elected to file a civil suit for the same relief. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Labour Court. The learned single Judge held that the Punjab Government was not the appropriate Government to refer the dispute for arbitration and that the workman was debarred from approaching the State of Punjab as the appropriate Government.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the State Government within whose territorial limitation the industrial dispute arose and the orders of dismissal had been received and became operative, is the appropriate Government for referring the industrial dispute for adjudication. The court also held that the appropriate Government is competent to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication even if it had refused to do so at an earlier occasion.
Issues: 1. Whether the "appropriate Government" to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication under Sec.10 is the State Government, within whose territorial jurisdiction the workman was working and orders of dismissal had been received; or the State Government within whose territorial jurisdiction the head office of or the industrial undertaking; is located and where the orders dismissing the workman have been passed? 2. Whether the State Government have once declined to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication under Sec.10 (1) (c) is competent to change its mind and refer that very industrial dispute for adjudication?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The object of the Act is to ensure fair terms to the workman and to prevent disputes between the employer and the employee so that production might not be adversely affected and the larger interests of the public might not suffer. Its provisions have to be interpreted in a manner which advances the object of the Legislature. 2. The term appropriate Government is defined in Sec.2 (a ). It is significant that this definition does not attach any importance to the place where the controlling office of the industry is situate. On the other hand, the words in relation to denote that wherever a dispute between the industry and its workmen arises, the Government having jurisdiction over that area would be competent to make a reference. It is not necessary that the head office or the controlling office of the industry should be present in that area. All that is required is that a part of the industry should exist there. 3. The situs of the industrial dispute determines the jurisdiction of the appropriate Government and the Labour Court.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgments of the learned single Judge and the Labour Court were quashed and the matter was remitted to the Labour Court for a fresh decision on merits.
Sukhdev Singh Kang, J.
1. Two questions of law arise in this Letters Patent Appeal:
(a) whether the "appropriate Government" to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication under Sec.10 is the State Government, within whose territorial jurisdiction the workman was working and orders of dismissal had been received; or the State Government within whose territorial jurisdiction the head office of or the industrial undertaking; is located and where the orders dismissing the workman have been passed? and
(b) whether the State Government have once declined to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication under Sec.10 (1) (c) is competent to change its mind and refer that very industrial dispute for adjudication?
2. A broad brush of factual backdrop will help in resolving the forensic controversy.
3. Ram Lal, appellant, was appointed as Land Evaluation Officer by the Punjab State Cooperative Land Mortgage. Bank Limited, Chandigarh (hereinafter called "the Bank"), on 9th November, 1968, on regular basis. In April, 1972, he was sent on deputation to the Bhatinda Primary Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Limited at Bhatinda. The appellant became a member of the union of the employees of the bank. He was implicated in a case of corruption and was suspended on 11th August, 1972. He was also arraigned and tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda. There was no evidence against the petitioner and he was discharged by the learned Magistrate on 8th February, 1973. . However, in the meantime, the Chairman of the Bank terminated the services of the appellant on 10th November, 1972, while he was still working at Bhatinda. The appellant sent a registered demand notice to the Chairman of the Bank on 15th November, 1972, against the order of termination of his services as required by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act" ). Since no action was taken on the demand notice, the Land Mortgage 3ank Employees Union sponsored the appellants cause and the General Secretary of the Union wrote to the Conciliation Officer and requested that conciliation proceedings in the case be initiated as the employer had refused to accede to the demand of the workman. While the conciliation proceedings were going on, the appellant received a letter from the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, wherein the appellant was informed that since the demand notice was served on the Chairman of the Bank and it was not his employer the appellants case cannot be considered under the Act. On a further representation by the appellant, he was informed that the Punjab Government was not the appropriate Government in respect of his case and cannot take any action in the matter. Thereafter, the appellants case was referred to the Home Secretary of Chandigarh Administration, who, vide orders dated 23rd May, 1974, declined to refer the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court. Against this order the appellant filed C. W. P. No.3835 of 1974, which was dismissed by a Division Bench in limine. The appellant filed a civil suit on 14th May, 1975, in the Court of Subordinate Judge, III Class, Bhatinda, seeking a declaration that the appellant continued to be in service of the bank and the order terminating his services were illegal and void. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the orders dated 10th November, 1972, terminating the services of the plaintiff was illegal, void and was not binding on the plaintiff. He, however, relying on a decision of the Apex Court in Sukhdev Singh V/s. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi 1975-I L. L. J.399 held that the plaintiffs suit was not maintainable against the bank, because it was neither a Department of the Government, nor was a statutory body whose employees have statutory status.
4. The Union espoused the petitioners case with the State Government and the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, vide endorsement dated 25th May, 1978, referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court under Sec.10 (1) (a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
