- (1.) THE petitioner, a Journalist, was working for M/s. Bennett Coleman and Company, Respondent No. 1. In December 1971, he was transferred from Katmandu to Chandigarh. He retired in May, 1982. The petitioner avers that the respondent had failed to categorise him in accordance with the Palekar Award. As a result, his pay and gratuity had been wrongly determined. He, consequently, made a demand on August 22, 1983 for the correct fixation of his pay and gratuity. On September 17, 1984, he served a notice for payment of an amount of Rs. 87,054. 54 ps. He was paid an amount of Rs. 53,997. 75 ps. as gratuity and leave compensation. This was, however, less than the amount which the petitioner claimed to be actually due to him. Accordingly, on July 16, 1984 the petitioner served a notice of demand on the Management and requested the Chandigarh Administration to refer the matter to the Labour Cort. On December 27, 1984 Chandigarh Administration made a reference under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, it was later on found that the petitioner had, in fact, made an application under Section 17 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). Consequently, the reference as originally made was modified so as to conform to the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. The Management appeared before the Labour Court. It filed a written statement. One of the objections raised by the respondent-Management related to the territorial jurisdiction of the Chandigarh Administration to make the reference. On the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed as many as nine issues. The first of these issues was: "whether the Chandigarh Administration has no jurisdiction to make this dispute as Administrator had no sufficient material before him? OPM. "
(2.) ON consideration of the matter, the Labour Court concluded that "the service conditions of the petitioner were governed from Delhi office. " Accordingly, it decided the aforesaid issue against the petitioner and held that "the present reference is not legally entertainable by this Court. " Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) I have heard Mr. R. L. Batra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Harsh Aggarwal for the respondent-Management. Mr. Nipun Mittal has appeared for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.;