D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) One Sri Sagwa Singh had raised an industrial dispute which was pending adjudication. In Writ Petition No. 3987 of 1984 Sri Sayeed Ashgar, the respondent No. 2, was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding and certain order was passed affecting his service condition. In view of the pendency of the dispute by way of abundant precaution, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 33-B(2) read with Section 6-E(2)(b) of the U.P. I.D. Act. By an order dates November 29, 1983 passed in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1975, the application under Section 6-E(2)(b) was rejected. In the said judgment, the Labour Court had held that Sayed Ashgar was not a concerned workman in the dispute between the employer and Sri Sagwa Singh. Therefore, on that ground the application under Section 6-E(2) was not maintainable. Thereafter, the Labour Court had proceeded to decide the case on merit and has ultimately found that the dismissal of Sayeed Ashgar on the ground of theft was illegal and unjustified. Ultimately, on this finding the application under Section 6-E(2) was rejected. During the pendency of the said Misc. Case No. 1 of 1975 Sayeed Ashgar sought a reference under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act i.e. Section 4-K of the U.P. I.D. Act out of which a reference was made by the State Government. The said reference was registered as adjudication Case No. 125 of 1986. By an order dated February 1, 1989 passed in Adjudication Case No. 125 of 1986, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Meerut had held that the reference under Section 4-K of the Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable and that the workman is not entitled to any relief on the ground that since the termination of service of Sri Sayeed Ashgar was already decided on merit by the Labour Court in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1975 by an order dated November 29, 1983. The order dated November 29, 1983 has since been challenged by Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3987 of 1984 whereas the order dated February 1, 1989 has been challenged by the workman through Mr. P.C. Jhingan in Writ Petition No. 32399 of 1990.
(2.) I have heard both the counsel at length.
(3.) The short question that arises for determination in this case is as to whether the Labour Court could proceed to determine the question of termination on merit in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 33-B(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and 6-E(2) of the U.P. I.D. Act. In fact, the scope of Section 6-E(2) is confined to the extent that the workman is concerned or not. If the workman is concerned in that event, the approval is necessary. In the present case, as soon it was found that the workman was not concerned, the Labour Court ceased to have jurisdiction. After having found that the workman was not concerned workman, the Labour Court cannot seem to have jurisdiction and proceed to decide the question on merit. The jurisdiction under Section 6-E(2) is altogether different from Section 4-K. While the jurisdiction under Section 4-K is wider and relates to the adjudication of the dispute, Section 6-E(2) is confined only to the question of grant of approval in respect of alteration of service condition of the workman concerned in a pending dispute. The jurisdiction can be assumed only when the workman is concerned in pending dispute. Unless the workman is concerned in the pending dispute, the jurisdiction under Section 6-E(2) cannot be exercised. Even if the application is made by way of abundant precaution that does not confer jurisdiction on the Labour Court to enter into the merit which can be gone into under Section 4-K.;