- (1.) ARUN Tandon, J. Heard Miss Bharati Sapru, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. S. Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. Nobody is present on behalf of the contesting respondent even in the revised reading of the cause list.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against an interlocutory order passed by the Labour Court, Meerut dated 12th April, 1989 in a pending adjudication case. THIS petition is an example of how a powerful employer can install the proceedings of an industrial dispute pending before the Labour Court for more than 18 years with the help of legal technicalities and niceties. The petitioner is a Company, registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and owns various Units located in different parts of the country. The services of the workman, respondent No. 2, were terminated on 11th September, 1985. Against the said action of the respondent No. 2, the workman raised an industrial dispute. The State Government referred the said dispute under Section 4-K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court Meerut. The said dispute was registered as Adjudication Case No. 198 of 1986. The Labour Court framed following issues, reads as follows: "issue No. I: Whether the workman's services were terminated on 11-8-1985 or 11-9-1985? Issue No. II: Whether the workman concerned had been engaged in specific time bound nature of jobs and the total period of service did not exceed 240 days from the last date of his service? Issue No. III: Whether the workman concerned was covered by the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the employer had been flouting these provisions and if so, to what effect? Issue No. IV: Whether workman junior to Chanderveer Singh had been retained in service while terminating his services and even fresh hands were engaged after ignoring Chandraveer Singh's rightful claims? Issue No. V: To what relief/compensation is the workman entitled?"
(3.) ON behalf of the workman, an application was moved whereby he prayed for summoning certain records from the petitioner-company including attendance registers, payment of wages registers service record also wage slips of all the Kamdars from the year 1983 to the year 1987, a copy of this Application was marked as 27-D. The petitioner-company filed objections before the Labour Court, which was marked as 28-D. In the said objections the petitioner raised objections to the effect that the application of the workman was not supported by any affidavit indicating the relevance of the documents summoned and, therefore, deserves to be rejected ex facie on that ground alone. It was further objected that the matter of dispute referred to the Labour Court related to the termination of the services of the workman w. e. f. 11-8-1985, and therefore, the prayer of the workman to summon the documents relating to the period subsequent to 11-8-1985 did not deserve any consideration. Thereafter, the petitioner-company also moved an application before the Labour, which was marked as 29-D. The Labour Court decided the two applications; one filed by respondent No. 2, workman, and the other filed by the petitioner vide order dated 12th April, 1989. By means of the said order, the application of the workman was allowed and the application of the petitioner, employer was rejected.;