The Labour Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate on matters incidental to the dispute referred to it, including the existence of an order of termination, and the petitioner's claim of illegal termination must have merit to be sustained.

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.

1. The Petitioner claims that he was appointed as a Helper on June 9, 1989 with M/s Dominent Offest Private Limited, Gurgaon. His services were terminated on March 20, 1991. He raised an industrial dispute. The following dispute was referred to the Labour Court: -

"whether the termination of Laxmi Kant is in order? If not, to what relief is he entitled. "

2. The Labour Court, has found as a fact that the petitioner had been appointed on July 2, 1990, and not on June 9, 1989. It has been further found that it was he who remained absent from duty and did not join though he had received a letter Exhibit M.4 wherein the management had asked him to report for duty. It has also been observed that the petitioner was again given an opportunity by the Labour Officer and was asked to "report for duty" but he did not join duty and filed the demand notice. Even then the management made an offer that the petitioner could join duty. He did so for two days and thereafter did not report for work. (To be continued in next issue)

3. On the basis of the above findings, the La-hour Court has held that it was the petitioner who had "stayed away from work and his services had never been terminated. . . . . . . . . " Still, the Labour Court had been generous and ordered the reinstatement. However, it denied him the benefit of back wages. Aggrieved by the denial of back wages, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. Mr. Sahni, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently urged that once the Government had made a reference, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to go into the question as to whether or not an order of termination had been passed. It was bound to only decide the question which had been referred to it. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the provisions of Sec.10 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .

5. Under Sec.10 (4), the Court is not only entitled to adjudicate upon the points of dispute but also on matter incidental thereto. In the present case, the petitioner had complained that his services had been illegally terminated. The appropriate Government had made a reference without giving any opportunity to the management. In fact, the appropriate Government had only considered the question regarding the existence of some dispute. It did not have to adjudicate upon the matter. The making of a mere reference does not mean that a finding has been recorded that the petitioners services had been terminated. The dispute referred to the Labour Court was: "whether the termination is in order?". The management was not precluded from raising any defence. It was entitled to urge that there was no order of termination and that the plea raised by the workman was unfounded. The existence of an order of termination was a matter incidental to the dispute referred to the Labour Court. It was entitled to go into this question. This is precisely what the Labour Court has done.

6. Mr. Sahni has placed reliance on the decision of their Lordships or the Supreme Court in The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. V/s. The Workmen and Ors. , (1967-I-LLJ-423 ). It was observed by their Lordships at p.431, that "the Tribunal must, in any event, look to the pleadings of the parties to find out the exact nature of the dispute, because in most cases the order of reference is so cryptic that it is impossible to cull out therefrom the various points about which the parties were at variance leading to the trouble. " This is precisely what the Labour Court has done in the present case.

7. A perusal of the findings recorded by the Tribunal reflect adversely on the conduct of the petitioner. He had himself gone away and remained absent. Yet, he raised a dispute. He had not worked for a period of even six months. The Labour Court has ordered his reinstatement. Yet, he is opening his mouth too wide. The claim made by the petitioner is wholly baseless. It cannot be sustained.

8. Mr. Sahni submits that even abandonmen