Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) THE subject matter of this writ petition is a preliminary issue before the Labour Court in an industrial adjudication. The Petitioner Messrs Swadeshi polytex Limited hiving its registered office at New Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, hereinafter referred to as the employer has filed the present writ petition against the proceedings of the Labour Court, Meerut in adjudication case no. 110 of 1978 in the matter relating to an industrial dispute between this employer and its workman Mr. L.S. Sharma. The State Government by an order dated June 10, 1978 referred the following matter for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 : - kya Sewayojakon dwara apne shramik Sri L.C. Sharma putra Shri Har Prasad Sharma, stenographer ko dinank 13 -2 - - 75 se sewaon samapt kiya jane uchit tatha/athawa vaidhanik hai ? Yadi nahi, to sambandhit shramik kiya labh/kshatipurit pane ka adhikari hai tatha anya kis vivaran sahit ? This reference still remains under adjudication though fourteen years have passed since the reference was made.
(2.) THE brief facts on which the employer and the Respondent workman concerned are not at issue are that it is not an issue that Mr. L.S. Sharma, the workman was employed at its Ghaziabad establishment. He was transferred to Ahmedabad by an order of the employer dated January 11, 1975. It appears that the workman concerned did not respond to the directions of the company on his transfer. Hereinafter the rift between the employer and the workman begins. It is on record that the workman filed a suit before the Munsif, Ghaziabad, Original Suit No. 80 of 1975 : Lajvant Saran Sharma v. Swadeshi Polytex Limited seeking an injunction transferring him from Ghaziabad to Ahmedabad. The workman had, as a Plaintiff, before the Munsif, Ghaziabad sought a declaration that the transfer order was illegal. The Munsif. Ghaziabad was of the view that the injunction sought cannot be granted as it was barred by the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and thus, the prayer for an ad interim relief was rejected by an order of February 1, 1975 The workman filed an appeal before the IInd Civil Judge, Meerut, being Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 80 of 1975. The learned Civil Judge declined to interfere with the order of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal by his order dated March 20, 1975. The workman continued to seek his remedy before the civil Court. He filed civil revision no. 86 of 1976 before the VIII Additional District Judge, Meerut. The learned Additional District Judge declined to interfere in it and the revision was dismissed by an order dated July 10, 1975. The net result of the proceedings before the civil Court, in so far as the workman was concerned is that he did not receive any injunction, ad interim or otherwise, stalling the order of transfer, with this chapter the civil proceedings closed. It appears that the workman raised an industrial dispute and this matter became the subject matter of a reference, referred to the Labour Court, Meerut.
(3.) BEFORE the Labour Court the parties exchanged their written statements. The workman made a reference to these proceedings before the Labour Court in his written statement in paragraphs 9 and 10 The contention of the workman in his written statement was that during the course of the proceedings before the civil courts a termination order visited him. Thus; he contends that he sought conciliation which failed and consequently the matter was referred for adjudication as a reference, before the Labour Court, Meerut. The employer also filed his written statement, and explained in the written statement why the order of termination had to be passed. The case of the employer is that as the workman would not obey the transfer order, this amounted to misconduct and, thus, the workman's services were liable to be terminated.;