- (1.) The petitioner-workman has filed this writ petition challenging the award of Labour Court Patiala thereby it dismissal the reference made to it by the State for the reason that the earlier reference was got dismissed by the petitioner as withdrawn. The petitioner has challenged this award of the Labour Court.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the present case are that respondent No. 2, the Steel Authority of India Ltd. illegally terminated the services of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application to the State of Punjab for making a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1987 to the Labour Court. The State of Punjab, vide its notification No. ID/PT/444-A-80/91993-97 dated 2nd December, 1980, made the following reference :- "Whether termination of services of Sh. Chaman Singh, workman, is justified and in order ? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation is he entitled." The respondent-management raised an objection before the Labour Court that the State of Punjab was not competent to make the reference because the former being a Central Government Corporation, only the Central Government was competent to make the reference. On this objection having taken the counsel appearing for the petitioner made a prayer to the Labour Court that the reference be dismissed as withdrawn with a right to the petitioner to raise a fresh dispute in a competent court. On this prayer, the Labour Court vide its award dated 3rd March, 1982, dismissed the reference application. Award dated 3rd March, 1982, is reproduced below :- "The respondent-management terminated the services of the workmen and the same gave rise to an industrial dispute. Vide Endst. No. ID/PT/444-A-80/91993-97 dated 2nd December, 1980, the Labour Commissioner Punjab, Chandigarh, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Court under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 :- Whether termination of services of Shri Chaman Singh, workman, is justified and in order ? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation is he entitled. 2. This reference was taken up today. Shri Som Pal, authorised representative of the workman has given a statement that the reference be dismissed as withdrawn with a right to raise fresh dispute in the competent Court, and in terms of the reference stands disposed of ..... The petitioner thereafter applied to the Government of India, vide demand notice dated 5.3.1982, for reference of the dispute to the Central Industrial Tribunal. However, the petitioner was advised by Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh, vide his letter No. 95/7/81-ACH dated 3.6.1982 that the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the State Government and hence the dispute be raised with the concerned authorities. On the basis of this letter, the petitioner again approached the State Government and the dispute was referred to respondent No. 1, vide Notification Endst. No. 19/PT/444-A-SC/89928-29 dated 23.9.1982. The Labour Court Punjab on the basis of the pleadings framed the following issues :- 1. "Whether the reference is not maintainable for the reasons mentioned in preliminary objections of the written statement ? 2. Whether the order of termination of services of the workman is justified and in order ? 3. Relief." The Labour Court decided Issue No. 1 against the petitioner and held that the second reference was not maintainable, as the earlier reference which had been claimed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 3rd March, 1982. It has further been observed in the impugned award that the second reference was not maintainable.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and am of the opinion that the impugned award is liable to be set aside in as much as the earlier reference application was withdrawn on a technical objection taken by the respondent-management that the State of Punjab was not competent to make the reference to the Labour Court and, in fact, the reference should have been made by the Central Government, the respondent-management being a Central body. The earlier reference application was withdrawn with permission to file a fresh reference application and on that understanding the earlier reference application was dismissed as withdrawn. The matter was never decided on merits. Since the matter was not decided on merits but was got dismissed by the petitioner with liberty to him to file a fresh reference on the same cause of action. I find no justification in the reasoning given by the Labour Court in dismissing the second reference on the ground that the earlier reference having been dismissed (although as withdrawn). The second reference was not maintainable. The second reference was not maintainable, the petitioner is entitled to at least one adjudication on merits, and the Labour Court was not justified in denying it to the petitioner. The question of second reconciliation proceedings and other formalities for the second reference were not required to be gone into. The writ petition is therefore, liable to be allowed.;