RAKESH SHARMA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri P.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner -employer and Sri R.K. Verma, who is appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 workman. The petitioner has assailed the award rendered by the Industrial Tribunal II, Lucknow on 25.5.19S4, a copy of which is contained in Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition.
(2.) A reference was made be the State Government under Section 4 -K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1917 vide G.O. No. 1348 (SHRA)/36 -SHRAM (1 -CC -23 (LUCK)/82 dated 22.3.1932 to the Industrial Tribunal II, Lucknow, for settlement of a dispute between M/s Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and its workman. The reference reads as follows: D;k lsok;kstdkas }kjk vius Jfed fo'kky JhokLro dh fu;kstdks ds vkns'k i= la[;k ,e -,y -,l -Mh -@1303@ l - 240 fnukad 14 -8 -1981 }kjk lsok;s lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr vFkok oS/kkfud gSA ;fn ugha] rks lEcfU/kr Jfed D;k ykHk@vuqrks'k fjyhQ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdl vkooj.k lfgrA The Tribunal, after going through the material on record, had concluded that the workman did not voluntarily abandon the employment and the order of termination of his services passed on 14.8.1981 was not just, legal and proper. He was retrenched from services without following due procedure as provided in law. Sri P.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the H.A.L. has submitted that the respondent No. 2 was a design engineer, he was not a workman of the company. He had applied for one month's leave w.e.f. 3.4.1980 to 3.5.1980 and thereafter. applied extension of leave from 4.5.1980 to 2.6.1980 on the ground of his sickness. He had further sought leave without pay for 111 days w.e.f. 20.10.1980 to 6.2.1981 on the ground of domestic circumstances. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 had remained absent from duty from 8.2.1981 to 19.5.1981 and from 21.5.1981 to 14.8.1981. He was formally granted leave up to 6.2.1981 only. He remained absent from duty for more than ten consecutive days. It was treated that he had lost his lien and abandoned the job. The employee's name was struck off from the rolls of the Division w.e.f. 14.8.1981. However, the respondent No. 2 turned up on 29.8.1981 and submitted his joining report, which was not accepted. He was formally informed vide notice dated 14.8.1988 that he had been considered to have voluntarily abandoned the job. The respondent No. 2 requested for his reinstatement vide his letter dated 2.9.1981, but that too was rejected on 29.9.1981. He then approached the conciliation officer but the matter could not be settled. As a result of this, a reference under Section 4 -K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was made by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal, before whom written statements, rejoinder etc. were filed. It was pleaded before the Industrial Tribunal that the respondent No. 2, Sri Vishal Srivastava was not a workman within the meaning of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, and consequently the reference made by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal was invalid. The H.A.L. examined Wing commander Sri N.K. Wadhwa as its witness. About 15 documents were produced before the Industrial Tribunal. The respondent No. 2 did not enter the witness box, instead the statement of her mother Smt. Madhuri Srivastava was recorded. The Tribunal gave its award on 25.5.1984, holding that respondent No. 2 was a workman and also observed that he ought to have been paid retrenchment compensation before terminating his service. The Tribunal also held the respondent No. 2 to be entitled for back wages and accordingly ordered for payment of the same.
(3.) SRI P.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the petitioner corporation is a Central Government's corporation under the control of Ministry of Defence, Government of India. The State Government was not empowered to refer the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 4 -K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the case; Even if M/s H.A.L. had consented to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal, such a consent or concurrence cannot give a jurisdiction to the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate upon the dispute. Where there is an initial want of jurisdiction, the same cannot be cured by acquiescence. In support of his submission, Sri Sinha has placed reliance on the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and this Court. 1. The United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Their Workman AIR 1951 (SC) 38. 2. Kliardah Co. Ltd. v. Baymon and Co. AIR 1962 SC 1810. 3. Union of India v. Rallia Ram. : AIR 1963 SC 1685. 4. Waverly Jute Mills v. Raymon and Co. : AIR 1963 SC 90.;