The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court has the authority to decide the maintainability of the reference as a preliminary issue and can reject the reference if it lacks jurisdiction.

This judgment shall also finally dispose of the pending Writ Petition No. 4804/2015.

2. In this appeal under section 2(1) of the MP Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, exception is sought to an interlocutory order dated 8-3-2016 passed by the writ Court in W.P. No. 4804/2015, whereby a stay granted by the learned writ Court on 29-4-2015 was vacated.

3. Facts in nutshell, go to show that with regard to certain industrial dispute raised pertaining to petitioner/appellant’s establishment, the appropriate Government exercised its jurisdiction and made a reference of the dispute to the Labour Court, Satna vide order dated 9-3-2012, and thereafter amended the same on 19-11-2012. The dispute referred for adjudication initially was as to whether termination of service of Shri Govind Pathak and 36 other employees, in all 37 employees as per list enclosed, is legal or not?

4. Subsequently the reference order was amended and the number of employees, whose cases were referred for adjudication, was increased from 37 to 345. Accordingly, as per appellant’s contention, as the dispute pertains to action taken against 345 employees, therefore, in accordance to the provisions of section 10(D) (sic) of the Industrial Disputes Act, when the number of employees involved is more than 300, the reference should have been made to the Industrial Tribunal or the Industrial Court and not the Labour Court. It was also stated that the legal questions involved in the matter was already decided and the reference was not maintainable.

5. Challenging the reference itself made on various grounds, the writ petition was filed. Initially stay of the proceedings before the Labour Court was granted on 29-4-2015 and subsequently by the impugned order dated 8-3-2016 as the stay is vacated, this writ appeal has been filed.

6. Shri R.N. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate, took us through the provisions of section 10(D) (sic) of the Act; the requirement of the IIIrd Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act; and, tried to emphasise that once the number of employees involved in the Industrial Dispute is more than 100 and the dispute in question falls under the IIIrd Schedule, the reference should have been made to the Industrial Tribunal or Industrial Court, and reference to the Labour Court was not maintainable. The Labour Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and the reference itself to the Labour Court is unsustainable.

7. On the contrary, Shri Swapnil Ganguly argued that the question of jurisdiction of the Labour Court can very well be raised before the Labour Court, and the said Court is competent to decide the question as to whether the reference was maintainable and if not maintainable can refuse to answer the reference. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Government Advocate, argues that at this preliminary stage when the appellant/petitioner has a right to raise all these questions as are canvassed in the writ petition before the Labour Court itself, a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, was not maintainable.

8. We find much force in the objection raised by Shri Swapnil Ganguly. It is a well settled principle of law that when a reference is made to the Labour Court or the Industrial Court, the question as to whether the reference itself was maintainable can also be considered and decided by the Court to which reference is made. The Labour Court or the Industrial Court under law is entitled to reject the reference and refuse answering of the same, on account of want of jurisdiction. That being so, the petition at this stage without raising all these grounds before the Labour Court itself was not maintainable.

9. In this regard, we may take note of the provisions of section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which contemplates that when an industrial dispute is referred for adjudication to a Labour Court, Tribunal or a National Tribunal, on a point specified by the appropriate Government for adjud