B.R. Tuli, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a firm consisting of four partners and is carrying on transport business. There was no harmony amongst the partners and it is alleged that the share of Karam Singh, partner, was auctioned on May 30, 1966. The other partners issued transfer orders to respondents 3 and 4 on May 30, 1966, which they did not obey. They were, thereafter, dismissed from service by the three partners on June 11, 1966. Respondents 3 and 4 submitted demand notice through their Union on December 17, 1966, for reinstatement. The petitioner -firm did not concede their demand with the result that the matter was referred to the Punjab Government. By a notification dated 19/2 rd June, 1967, the Governor of Punjab being of the opinion that an industrial dispute existed between the workmen and the management of the petitioner -firm referred. the following dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Jullundur: - Whether the termination of services of Sarvshri Jograj Singh Driver and Parkash Dev Booking Clerk is justified and in order? If not, to what relief are they entitled?
(2.) AT that time, Bakshi Manohar Singh was the presiding Officer of the labour Court, Jullundur, and the management and workmen filed their respective statements before him. The term of Bakshi Manohar Singh expired on February 28, 1968 and in his place Shri I.D. Pawar was appointed by notification dated July 15. 1968 By a notification dated October 5, 1968, Shri E.F. Barlow was appointed as the presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jullundur. in place of Shri I.D. Pawar Shri E.F. Barlow was succeeded by Shri Sewa Singh who gave his award on February 6, 1970, which was published in the Punjab Government Gazette dated March 6, 1970, holding that respondents 3 and 4 had been illegally dismissed from service and were entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service. He made an order in these terms and directed respondents 3 and 4 to report for duty within 10 days. The petitioner -firm being dissatisfied with that award bas filed the present petition. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner -firm has argued that by notification dated April 19, 1957, the Labour Court at Amritsar with Shri Gian Chand Behl as the presiding Officer had been constituted from the date of the publication of the notification up to 28th February, 1958 and, therefore, there was no Labour Court, Amritsar, thereafter of which the headquarters could be transferred to Jullundur by a later notification when Shri Sher Singh Bakshi was appointed the presiding Officer The notification dated April 19, 1957, is in the following terms: - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. as amended by section 4 of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment And Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1956 (No. 35 of 1956) and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to constitute a Labour Court with the headquarters at Amritsar, and to appoint Shri Gian Chand Behl, retired District and Sessions Judge, as its Presiding Officer with effect from the date of the Publication of this notification in the Official Gazette up to 28th February, 1958. In addition to his duties as presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Shri Gian Chand Behl shall, for purpose of disposal of pending proceedings in relation to Industrial disputes, continue to serve as Chairman of the Second Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Amritsar, which was constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, as in force before the commencement of the aforesaid Act No. 35 of 1958 There will however, be no change in the existing terms and conditions of his service and he will not be entitled to any additional remuneration for this additional charge. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the use of the word 'and' between 'to constitute a Labour Court with the headquarters at Amritsar and 'to appoint Shri Gian Chand Behl' makes it clear that the term of Court as well as the appointment of its Presiding Officer was only up to February 28, 1958. I find myself unable to agree. As I read the notification, the Labour Court was constituted without any limitation as to time and it was only the period of continuance in office of Shri Gian Chand Bahl as Presiding Officer of that Court which was limited to February 28, 1958. I am supported in this view by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in The Atlas Cycle Industrial Ltd. v. The State of Punjab and others, I.L.R. 1961 (2) Pun. 421, wherein the following notification was under consideration: - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 7 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as inserted by section 4 of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1956 (No. 36 of 1956), and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of the Punjab is pleased to constitute the Industrial Tribunal with headquarters at Jullundur and to appoint Shri Avtar Narain Gujral, B.A., L.L.B., as its Presiding Officer with effect from the date of the publication of this notification in the Official Gazette up to 3rd June, 1957. The learned Judges, with regard to this notification, held as under: - The portion of the notification quoted above clearly shows that the Governor of Punjab purported to pass two orders - (1) for the constitution of the Industrial Tribunal with headquarters at Jullundur, and (2) the appointment of Shri Avtar Narain Gujral as its presiding Officer. The notification issued on the 3rd June 1959, which is No. 5950 -Lab -1 -59/347 -R.A., provided for only one of the above matters, i.e. the appointment of Shri Kesho Ram Passey as the presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab. The latter notification did not at all refer to the constitution of the Tribunal evidently because the Tribunal had previously been constituted for an indefinite term and was still in existence. It is true that the term of appointment of Shri Avtar Narain Gujral had come to an end on the 3rd June, 1959, but it did not mean that the Tribunal itself had come to an end. By the expiry of the term of Shri Gujral a vacancy occurred with regard to the presiding Officer of the Tribunal and the Government filled up that vacancy by appointing Shri Kesho Ram Passey. In view of that judgment, I do not find any substance in the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) THE Learned Counsel then argued that there is no provision in the Industrial Disputes Act authorising the Government to change the headquarters of a Labour Court from one place to another. This suit mission is without merit as the Labour Court was constituted for the whole State of Punjab with headquarters at Amritsar and those headquarters could be changed from Amritsar to any other place within the State. Any notification can be amended or modified in this respect. If the Government can fix the headquarters of a Labour Court when it is constituted it has equally the powers to change its headquarters if found necessary later on.;