Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition arises out of an award made by the Labour Court under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in favour of the respondent No. 3 - -workman. The employer has challenged the award as being ex parte and has also raised a basic ground of jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 6(2) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Condition of Service) Act, 1976 read with Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act).
(2.) IT appears that the matter was heard finally by a learned single Judge of this Court and the writ petition was allowed remanding the matter back to the Labour Court, Saharanpur, for decision afresh as the learned counsel agreed that the award was ex parte. The judgment dated 28.2.2008 is quoted herein below: Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddharth for the respondent -workman. This petition is substantially directed against an ex parte award. Both the parties agree on the facts of the case that the matter may be remanded to the Labour Court to re -hear the matter and pass an award after opportunity to the parties. Having considered the entire facts, it appears appropriate to quash the award dated 23.2.2007 passed in Adjudication Case No. 70 of 2006. Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed and the Award is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Labour Court, Saharanpur, who shall decide the dispute afresh after hearing the parties preferably, within a period of three months. Both the parties shall appear before the Labour Court, Saharanpur, respondent No. 2 on 27.3.2008 on which date the Presiding Officer shall fix another date to enable the parties to file their respective statements. The parties shall not be granted any adjournment of more than three days at a time. Sd/ - Hon. D.P. Singh, J.Dated 28.2.2008 It is, therefore, obvious from a perusal of the judgment that it was on the consent of the parties that the matter was remanded back to the Labour Court under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, The issue relating to the validity of the award, therefore, was not examined in the light of the provisions of Section 6(2) of the Sales Promotion Employees Act, 1976 and Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(3.) AFTER remand, the Labour Court came to be presided over by a retired I.A.S. Officer and, as such, the respondent -workman moved a Modification Application in this petition dated 5.5.2008 with a prayer to stay further proceedings before the Labour Court on the ground that the Presiding Officer was incompetent to adjudicate the controversy. A further prayer has been made that the Principal Secretary (Labour) be directed to appoint an Officer as defined under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to preside over the Court so that the proceeding may not be challenged on the ground of want of competence of the Officer.;