D.S. Sinha, J. - (1.) Heard Sri. P.K. Mookerji, learned Counsel appearing for Bharat Pumps & Compressors Limited, the employer-petitioner and Sri K.P. Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate representing Sri Anil Kumar Das Srivastava. the workman-respondent No. 3 at length and in detail.
(2.) In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the interim order dated May 14, 1981 and the award dated August 22, 1981, passed by the Labour Court, Allahabad, the respondent No. 2. in Adjudication Case No. 113/79, under Section 10(l)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act, are under challenge. The relevant facts are these. On October?, 1972 the respondent No. 3 was appointed by the employer on the post of Receipt and Dispatch Clerk, on probation. While he was still on probation the services of the respondent No. 3 were terminated on October 19, 1973. This termination gave birth to a controversy. It appears that by means of an order dated December 31, 1974 the State Government declined to make a reference of the dispute relating to the termination of the employment of the respondent No. 3 as it found it to be inexpedient to do so. However, later on, by means of an order dated January 31, 1979 it made a reference to the Labour Court. The position that the respondent No. 3 is a workman within the meaning of the expression assigned to it under the Act is not disputed. Further, it is not disputed that the termination of the employment of the respondent No. 3 was brought about without complying with the statutory provisions of Section 25F of the Act. In view of the fact that the respondent No. 3 was workman and that his services were terminated without complying the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, the order dated October 19, 1973, terminating the services of the respondent No. 3, is clearly illegal and it has been rightly held so by the respondent No. 2. During the course of adjudication proceedings before the respondent No. 2, the petitioner-employer had questioned the validity of the reference which has culminated into the impugned award. The challenge was based on the ground that the State Government, having once declined to make a reference, could not pass the second order making a reference without giving opportunity of being heard to the employer. The objection of the petitioning-employer was overruled by means of the order dated May 14, 1981.
(3.) The contention regarding the validity of the reference for the lack of opportunity to the employer, raised before the respondent No. 2, is reiterated by Sri. Mookerji, learned Counsel for the petitioner, before this Court.;