- (1.) D. P. Singh, J. Heard Sri Vinod Swaroop, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. N. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent-workman.
(2.) PLEADINGS have been exchanged and both parties agree that the writ petition itself may be disposed off under the Rules of the Court. Through the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged an award made by the Labour Court I, Kanpur dated 26th September, 1991. The facts as evident from a perusal of the award and the record of the case is that the respondent workman after being selected as Secretary by the Director of Handloom, U. P. was assigned to Nawyuwak Bunkar Audyogik Utpadan Samiti Limited, Ranipur, in Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as the Society ). The Respondent No. 1 worked in the society from 29th May, 1981 till July, 1984. The services of the respondent No. 1 were terminated w. e. f. 1-4-1985. This termination led to a reference under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court at Kanpur which registered it as Adjudication Case No. 120 of 1986. The following dispute was referred: "kya SEWAJAKON DWARA APNE SHRAMIK MITHLESH KUMAR PUTRA DEOTA DIN TIWARI, SACHIV, KO DINANK 1-4-1985 SE KARYA SE PRATHAK KIYA JANA UCHIT EVAM VAIDHANIK HAI? YADI NATHIN? TO SAMBANDHIT SHRAMIK KYA HIT LABH PANE KA ADHIKARI HAI, TATHA KIS ANYA VIVRAN SAHIT?" The aforesaid reference was made by the State Government vide its order dated 15-9-1988 wherein the petitioner was shown as the employer.
(3.) BOTH the parties filed their written statements, examined their respective witnesses and also filed documents in support of their claims. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection that the reference itself was bad, inasmuch as, the necessary parties were not impleaded. The specific case set up by the petitioner was that it was not the employer of the workman and in fact the employer was the society. The labour Court after considering all the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the workman was appointed by Director of Handlooms. However, the labour Court went on to hold that since the petitioner was shown as the employer therefore, he had no jurisdiction to amend the reference. The labour Court further held that since in the case under Section 15 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the Directorate of Handlooms, U. P. was arrayed as the employer, thus, the labour Court proceeded and decreed the claim of the workmen holding that the termination was in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. Counsel for the petitioner has raised four submissions before me: (a) The reference itself was bad as proper parties were not impleaded. (b) The Respondent No. 1 was not a workman within the meaning of the Act and in fact no reference could have been made. (c) The department of Handlooms of the State of U. P. is a Government department and thus is not an industry. And, (d) No order of termination dated 1-4-1985 was either filed or proved before the labour Court. In support of the first contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the findings recorded by the labour Court. The findings appear at page 69 of the paper book and read as follows: "patrawali KE UPLABDH KATHANO/upkathano, PATTRAJATON TATHA GAWAHON KE BAYANON KO DEKHANE SE YEH ASPASTHA HO JATA HAI KI WADI SHRAMIK MITHILESH KUMAR TIWARI KI NIYUKTI HATHKARGHA NIRDESHALAYA, U. PRA. KE UP NIBANDHAK DWARA SACHHATKAR LENE KE BAAD SACHIV KE PAD PAR HATHKARGHA NIRDESHALAYA DWARA KI GAI THI. USKI POSTING BHI NIRDESHALAYA DWARA KI GAI HAI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ";