The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court's jurisdiction is limited to the terms of reference and cannot go beyond it. The judgment also emphasizes the need for consent in deputation and clarifies that non-joining at the transferred place does not amount to termination.

JUDGMENT :

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Diptiman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Gopal Narain Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 06.04.2001 passed by Labour Court, Saharanpur in Adjudication Case No. 1 of 2014, published on 02.07.2021.

3. Facts leading to the present petition, are that petitioner is a Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Deoband, Saharanpur. It has 7 sugar units in the State of U.P. and one such unit at Ramkola, District-Kushinagar. Respondent no. 4 was working as a Cane Inspector in the petitioner-Company since 01.01.1997. By the order dated 13.06.2009, he was sent on deputation to Ramkola unit of Company for a period of one year. He was required to join at Ramkola unit on 19.06.2009. respondent-workman challenged the order of deputation through Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36593 of 2009 before this Court which was dismissed by order dated 28.07.2009. Thereafter, respondent-workman filed Original Suit No. 232 of 2009 before the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deoband, Saharanpur challenging the order of deputation. A temporary injunction application 6C2 was also moved which was rejected by order dated 03.02.2010. The suit was however dismissed on 17.10.2016. However, during the pendency of the suit, the respondent-workman approached the State Government for referring the dispute to Labour Court and on 26.12.2013, the State Government exercising power under Section 4-K of the Industrial Disputes Act referred the matter to the Labour Court, Saharanpur which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 1 of 2004. The reference order reads as under:-

^^D;k eS0 f=os.kh bathfu;fjax ,.M b.MLVªht fy0] 'kqxj ;wfuV] nsocUn] lgkjuiwj ds lsok;kstd }kjk vius deZpkjh Jh lanhi dqekj iq= Jh czgeiky flag] xUuk fujh{kd dh lsok;sa fnukad 13-06-2009 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa voS/kkfud gSA ;fn ugha rks lacaf/kr deZpkjh fdl vkuqrks"k dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\^^

4. The petitioner filed a written statement stating therein that by order dated 13.06.2009 he was sent on deputation to Ramkola unit and by that order the service was not terminated. Further ground was taken that State Government had acted beyond its jurisdiction by referring the matter to the Labour Court on the ground that he has been terminated from service, though, no such termination letter was issued nor any termination order was passed. The Labour Court by award dated 06.04.2021 directed for reinstatement of the respondent-workman with 40% back wages and also awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/- as expenses. Hence, this writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that prior to approaching the State Government for referring the matter to the Labour Court, respondent-workman had approached this Court by filing writ petition challenging his deputation order which was dismissed on 28.07.2009. Thereafter, a civil suit was filed wherein a temporary injunction application 6C2 was moved which was also dismissed. It was nowhere the case of respondent-workman that his services were terminated by order dated 13.06.2009 and all through the workman had challenged the transfer/deputation order. It was for the first time that after expiry of almost four years that the reference was made to the Labour Court on the ground that the services of the workman was terminated by order dated 13.06.2009. The Labour Court is a court of referred jurisdiction, it cannot travel beyond the terms of reference order. The reference made was in regard to termination of workman on 13.06.2009, though, he was sent on deputation on that date. According to him, the finding recorded by the Labour Court was patently illegal as the reference itself was bad as the services of the workman was never terminated and he was only sent on deputation by the order dated 13.06