- (1.) RAJES Kumar, J. By means of present petition, the petitioner is challenging the award dated 10. 10. 2000 given by the Prescribed Authority Labour Court (III), U. P. , Kanpurin Industrial Disputes Case No. 1 of 1991 on the reference being made by the State Government under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ).
(2.) THE petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 15/1, Cubbon Road, Bangalore. It is claimed to be Government of India undertaking. THE petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of sophisticated Aircraft and other defence equipments and caters to the Ministry , of Defence in India. THE petitioner has several units all over India. THE dispute relates to the unit at Chakeri, Kanpur. THE Company claimed to have been incor porated in the year 1964. THE respondent No. 3 claimed to have been appointed as a Fitter in the petitioner's Company in the year 1964. He worked till 1967. Since then, he remained absent and did not report for work at all. In the year 1988, the respondent No. 3 raised his claim before the Conciliation Officer and claimed that his services had been wrongly terminated with-effect from 9. 10. 1967. THE respondent No. 3 also moved an application for the condonation of delay on 29. 9. 1988 and filed objection in C. B. Case No. 1124 of 1988. THE petitioner re ceived a notice dated 22. 10. 1988 and the petitioner also received an order/letter dated 30. 4. 1990 written by Joint Secretary, Labour Department, U. P Govern ment, Kanpur to Shri RN. Tripathi, respondent No. 3 by which it was informed that the State Government has not considered the case proper for adjudication and the same has been consigned to record on the ground that the dispute has been raised delayed. However, vide letter dated 7. 1. 1991 it has been informed that Government has referred the dispute under Sedition 4-K of the Act to the Labour Court on the issue "kya Sewayojakon dwara apne Karmachari Prem Narain Tripathi putra Shri Ram Nath Tripathi Pad-Assembly Fitter ko dinank 9. 10. 67 se karya se prathak/banchit kiya jana anuchit evam avaidhanik hai? Yadi ha, to sambandhit karmachari kya hitlabh/upsham paneka adhikari hai tatha kis anya vivran sahit. " The petitioner challenged the aforesaid reference by means of Writ Peti tion No. 11821 of 1991 on the ground that it was made after 21 years. This Court passed an interim order staying the order of reference. However, the writ petition was finally decided vide order dated 18. 5. 99. This Court observed as follows: "the main ground of challenge in the present petition is that the dispute has been raised by respondent No. 3 after 21 years and, therefore, the refer ence should not be made by the State Government. It is now well settled that there is no limitation prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act for referring the matter for adjudication. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajab Singh v. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Lim ited and another, JT1999 (3) SC 38 had held that the provisions of the limita tion Act, 1963 are not applicable in respect of proceeding arising under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is for the Labour Court to mould the relief according to the facts of the case. It shall be open to the petitioner to raise whatever objection it wants to raise before the Labour Court. " Thereafter the petitioner received the notice in Adjudication Case No. 1 of 1991. On behalf of petitionerrsri S. C. Saxena, Advocate appeared. Respondent No. 3 had filed his written statement on 5. 3. 1991. The petitioner filed its written statement on 2. 8. 2000. The petitioner raised various objections claimed to be as follows: (a) The petitioner's Company belongs to the Central Government Public Sector and was fully controlled and managed by the Central Government and, therefore, the State Government could not refer the matter under Sec tion 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act in view of the provisions of Section 2 (I) (i) and (ii) of the Act and it is the Central Government who can refer the matter. (b) By the notification dated 3. 7. 1998 the Central Government had trans ferred power to the State Government to make reference under the Industrial Disputes Act. Such power would be exercised by the State Government only after 3. 7. 1998 and, therefore, the reference made by the State Government in 1991 was without jurisdiction. (c) The constitution of the Labour Court was under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act and not under the Industrial Disputes Act (Central) and, there fore, it had no jurisdiction to try the case of the petitioner for which the appro priate Government was the Central Government. (d) The reference made after 21 years was highly belated. The appoint ment of the Presiding Officer hearjng the matter was not valid as he did not fulfil the condition under Articles 234 and 236 of the Constitution of India and also the provisions of Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act.
(3.) A rejoinder statement was also filed by the petitioner on 13. 8. 2000. The respondent No. 3 moved an application on 2. 8. 2000 by which he objected the appearance of Sri S. C. Saxena, Advocate who was authorised representative of the Company and appearing since the year 199t. The petitioner filed the objec tion. Howevert vide order dated 14. 8. 2000 the Labour Court debarred the appear ance of Sri S. C. Saxena, Advocate saying that he'was a legal practitioner and could not appear in view of Section 6-I of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by way of Writ Petition No. 42503 of 2000. The said writ petition claimed to be pending. After 14. 8. 2000, the petitioner's Company was prevented from representing its case through its authorised repre sentative Sri S. C. Saxena, Advocate. After 14. 8. 2000, the date was fixed on 28. 2. 2000 for filing the documents and thereafter the date-was fixed for 13. 9. 2000. On 13. 9. 2000, the petitioner filed an application seeking time to seek its remedy. However, the petitioner filed the documents in compliance of the order of the Court. He submitted that on that day it was not possible to cross-examine the workman's evidence and to produce its own evidence. Further on 13. 9. 2000 the Company filed two documents, namely certified standing orders of the Company and photo copy of the administrative instructions on the subject- maintenance of records. The petitioner's application for seeking time was rejected by the Court on 13. 9. 2000 and the award was given. Heard Sris. D. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shayam Narain, assisted by Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 and 2.;