- (1.) This order will dispose of Writ Petitions No. 2608 and 2609 of 1981 as common question of law and fact is involved in both these petitions. The facts however, have been extracted from C.W.P. No. 2608 of 1981 Workmen of Haryana Woollen and General Mills Pvt. Ltd. Panipat vs. M/s Haryana Woollen & General Mills Private Limited and another.
(2.) Workmen of the Haryana Woollen & General Mills Pvt. Limited Panipat (hereinafter called the petitioners) seek writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad dated 26th February, 1981 vide which it was held that the workmen had failed to prove espousal of their demand by a sub- stantial number of workmen thereby not making the reference as industrial dispute and consequently answered the reference in the aforesaid terms.
(3.) The brief facts of the case reveal that some of the factory workers of M/s. Haryana Woollen & General Mills Private Limited, Panipat (hereinafter called the management) were served retrenchment notices on 25.2.1979. The same were effective from 24.3.1979. However, when the notice period had not expired, the management with malafide intention as alleged laid off 26 workmen who were doing same nature of job, which was done by the proposed retrenched workmen. Being aggrieved by the said illegal action of the management, the union served a demand notice of the management asking for full wages as also to take them back in service. The Conciliator Officer, as required under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, called the parties, but the management did not give any comments in writing. The Conciliation Officer sent failure report (Annexure P-3) to the Government. On receipt of the said report to the State of Haryana vide notification referred the following matter for adjudication: "Whether the action of the management is laying off the workmen mentioned in Annexure T is justified and in order? If not, to what relief are they entitled? (attached list of 26 workers)." It is pleaded that the petitioners filed statement of claim (Annexure P-3) before the Industrial Tribunal and the management filed written statement (Annexure P.6). On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: "1. Whether the demand has been espoused by a substantial number of Workmen? 2. Whether action of the management in laying off the workmen mentioned in Annexure-I in is justified and in order? If not, to what relief are they entitled? Issue No. 1 was considered as preliminary issue and the Tribunal decided the same by returning a finding that there was no espousal and the reference had not become Industrial dispute. It is this order as indicated in the earlier part of the judgment whjch has been challenged by the petitioners.;