- (1.) A. P. Singh, J. Vishnu Narain Gupta, the petitioner, who happened to be manager of a cinema hall known as Imperial Cinema, Kanpur, owned by a private firm with Sri K. N. Garg as one of the partners, has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of his termination order dated 29. 2. 96 and for restraining opposite party (O. P. No. 3 cinema owner) not to interfere in petitio ner's functioning as Manager of the cinema hall and further for payment of his salary.
(2.) ON an ex pane motion made by the petitioner to this Court following order was passed on 15-4-1996: "notice on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Issue notice to respondent No. 3, returnable at an early date. In the meantime opposite party No. 2 shall dispose of the representation of the petitioner contained in Annexure 5 to the writ petition within one month from the date a certified copy of this order along with the copy of the representation is produced before him. Till the disposal of the representation the order dated 29. 2. 1996 contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition shall not be given effect to. The petitioner is directed to serve a copy of this order along with copy of the representation as men tioned above within ten days from today. " By virtue of that order petitioner, as per the allegation of opposite party No. 3, Eetitioner had to be paid his salary despite is services having been terminated and relationship of master and servant between O. P. No. 3 and petitioner having snapped with effect from 29. 2. 96. In the writ petition petitioner projected that his services were governed by the model standing orders which have been framed under the provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and since no enquiry and disciplinary proceedings were held before his services were terminated by opposite party No. 3, therefore, the order of termination was per se illegal which justified his filing of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India. Petitioner, however, did not give any fact in the writ petition as to how the model standing orders are applicable to him in his capacity as Manager of the Cinema Hall. He did not give the number of employees who were working in the cinema hall though for attracting the provisions of the 1946 Act, the establishment concerned must have a certain number (100) of employees (workmen) working in it. Petitioner also stated in the writ petition that he filed a representation against the order of termination of his ser vices before the Additional Labour Com missioner, Kanpur, Opposite party No. 2, who according to the petitioner paid no heed to his representation hence according to the petitioner he was compelled to file the writ petition. Under which provision of law petitioner had the right to file applica tion/representation before opposite party No. 2. , and under which provision of law opposite party No. 2 possessed the power to interfere and set aside / quash the order of termination of petitioner's services have not at all been indicated in the writ application, this Court, however, granted (passed) the interim relief order dated 15. 4. 96 with the result opposite party No. 3 was compelled to pay him salary obviously under the threat of contempt proceedings.
(3.) LABOUR Commissioner or LABOUR Courts have jurisdiction in the matter of termination of services of a workman of an industrial establishment in exercise of powers conferred by U. P. Industrial Dis putes Act, 1947. Most essential ingredient for ap plicability of the provisions of U. P. In dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 is that the ap plicant are the person aggrieved must be a workman as per the definition given under Section 2 (5) of that Act.;