Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was heard by me on 3rd of January, 2002 and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. I dismissed the writ petition for reasons to be recorded later on. The reasons for the dismiasal of the aforesaid writ petition are as under.
(2.) The facts which are not in dispute are as follows. That petitioner's father Ram Nath, who was an employee of Central P.W.D.. Kanpur and was posted as Waterman, died while in service ; that in view of the circumstances after the death of petitioner's father, petitioner was appointed as a muster role employee on compassionate ground ; that while the petitioner was working as muster role employee, the petitioner's mother, namely, widow of deceased Ram Nath. sought an employment under dying-in-hamess rules and she was appointed under dying-in-harness rules with the employer Central P.W.D., Central Region. Kanpur as peon. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner, who was appointed on the compassionate ground, in the circumstances petitioner's services were terminated by the "Assistant Engineer vide his order dated 24.3.1996. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner Sheo Shanker raised a dispute which is registered as I.D. Case No. 155 of 1989 before the Labour Court, U. P., Kanpur, but the same was dismissed as no reference was made. It is on the another application that the matter was referred by the State Government under Section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act to the respondent-Labour Court Vth, Kanpur. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute that on the pleadings of the parties, a preliminary objection was raised by the employer as to whether the Labour Court Vth, Kanpur, has jurisdiction to give answer to the reference. In view of the fact that the petitioner alleges to be an employee of the Central P.W.D., which is a department of the Central Government and, therefore, in the case of the petitioner even assuming, though not admitting that the dispute was in existence, the appropriate Government should be the Central Government and not the State Government. The aforesaid preliminary objection found favour with the Labour Court, which has relied upon Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, which reads as under : "2A. Dismissal etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute.--Where any employer discharges, dismisses retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with or arising out of such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute."
(3.) The Labour Court relied upon the aforesaid definition, in my opinion, rightly arrived at the conclusion that the respondent-Labour Court Vth, Kanpur. does not have jurisdiction as the State Government has no jurisdiction to refer the dispute under Section 4K, as has been done in the present case. The reference was answered against the workman on the ground of the aforesaid findings recorded on the preliminary objection without entering into the merits of the case.;