Order

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging award dated 19.04.1997 passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Bhilwara (Rajasthan), whereby reference relating to termination of the services of the respondent- workman was answered in favour of workman with further directions of reinstatement along with consequential benefits.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the threshold submitted that the award dated 19.04.1997 passed by the Labour Court is without jurisdiction as the respondent- workman was holding the post of Assistant Manager, which does not fall within the ambit of ‘Workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1947’). Learned counsel submits that without deciding the preliminary issue, as to whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain the reference or not, the Labour Court proceeded further and decided the matter on merits.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not having any knowledge with regard to passing of award dated 19.04.1997, till execution petition was filed and notices were received by the petitioner from the executing Court.

4. Learned counsel also submits that even otherwise, the petitioner is not having financial capacity to satisfy the award dated 19.04.1997. Learned counsel submits that it is settled proposition of law that if the award itself is without jurisdiction and all other consequential proceedings would be null and void.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

6. In the entire writ petition, it has not been disputed that notices issued by the Labour Court, Bhilwara, of the reference decided vide award dated 19.04.1997, were duly received by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner orally submitted that before the Labour Court, President of Seva Sahakari Samiti, was impleaded as a party and not the petitioner itself, therefore, even if service was effected upon the Chairman of petitioner that cannot be treated as sufficient service upon the petitioner. Such submission is bereft and devoid of any merit and substance. It has not been disputed that the Chairman of the Samiti was party to the petition, and was served upon with notices issued by the Labour Court.

7. There are no pleadings to the effect that the Chairman did not bring the fact with regard to pendency of reference proceedings in the knowledge of the petitioner society. Even otherwise, before the Labour Court the Chairman was not impleaded in his personal capacity by his name and was rather impleaded by his designation, which is considered to be sufficient compliance of joinder of parties in the petition, and thus, notices were also duly served upon the petitioner. Even otherwise, in the entire writ petition, nothing has been pleaded to justify the long delay of around 29 years in challenging award dated 19.04.1997, whereas the record shows that even notices of execution proceedings were also served upon the petitioner long back. Aforesaid period of 29 years is a long period, and until and unless, there are justified reasons mentioned in the memo of petition, it cannot be ignored by the Writ Court exercising it’s jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

8. As regards the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent, since holding the post of Assistant Manager, was not a ‘Workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947, it is sufficient to observe that as to whether an employee is a workman or not, is a mixed question of fact and law, which can be decided on the basis of evidence and not merely on the basis of designation assigned to a particular employee.

9. In the instant case, admittedly no evidence was led on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, at this stage, only by raising such baseless objection, it cannot be argued by the petitioner, that award was without jurisdiction.

10. As regards arg