- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. State of U.P. made a reference to Industrial Tribunal (IV), Agra under section 10(1) of Industrial Disputes Act (Central) read with section 6(2) of Sales Promotion Employees Condition of Service Act 1976. Section 6(2) of the latter Act is quoted below: The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), as in force for the time being, shall apply to, or in relation to, sales promotion employees as they apply to, or in relation to, workmen within the meaning of that Act and for the purposes of any proceeding under that Act in relation to an industrial dispute, a sales promotion employee shall be deemed to include a sales promotion employee who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment had led to that dispute. The dispute was between the petitioner-employer and its workman respondent No. 3, Ratan Kumar and related to termination of his services dated 10.2.2000. The reference was received by the Industrial Tribunal (IV), Agra on 22.7.2003. However, as the Tribunal was vacant (there was no Presiding Officer of the Tribunal at the relevant time), hence State Government by G.O. dated 8.12.2005 transferred the adjudication case to Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra, which was registered there as Adjudication Case No. 60 of 2006. The employer raised preliminary objection before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra that the transfer was bad and Labour Court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. The preliminary objection was rejected on 1.3.2007 which order has been challenged through this writ petition.
(2.) In my opinion, the employer is unnecessarily delaying the proceedings by raising frivolous objections regarding jurisdiction. There is always a presumption that official acts are done in a proper manner. Under section 10(1), proviso (i) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central) it is provided as under:-- provided that where dispute relates to any matter specified in the Third Schedule and is not likely to affect more than one hundred workmen, the appropriate Government may, if it so thinks fit, make the reference to a Labour Court under Clause (c). Clauses (c) and (d) of section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central) are quoted below: (c) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, if it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication or (d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to a Tribunal for adjudication:
(3.) Accordingly, the instant dispute might either be referred to Labour Tribunal or to Labour Court. Labour Courts constituted under U.P. Industrial Disputes Act are also Labour Courts established by the State Government under Industrial Disputes Act (Central) as provided under section 7(1) of Industrial Disputes Act (Central), which is quoted below: The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Labour Courts for the adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in the Second Schedule and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under this Act.;