S.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) THE correctness of the ration decidendi in Shree Gopal Paper Mills Ltd. v. The State of Punjab, 1959 (1) L.L.J. 639, is indeed the sole issue that has been agitated in this writ petition before us on a reference to a larger Bench.
(2.) THE relevant facts are not in dispute and fall within a narrow compass. Consequent upon enquiry proceedings before a domestic Tribunal, Jagdish Parkash, Respondent No. 3, an employee of the Petitioner -company was dismissed from service by its order dated the 28th of August, 1968. Aggrieved by the same he filed a complaint before the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, under Section 33 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act on the 30th November, 1968. The Petitioner -company filed a written statement thereto but the Respondent failed to put in appearance on the fixed date of 10th of March, 1969, and the complaint was dismissed in default on the 8th of April, 1969. The order of dismissal being in the nature of an award was published in the Government Gazette dated the 9th of May, 1969 (annexure C to the petition). After the expiry of nearly a year thereafter the State Labour Commissioner exercising the powers of the State Government under Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act made a reference to the Labour Court at Jullundur on the 12th of June, 1970, at the instance of Respondent No. 3. The issue referred therein was whether the termination of the Respondent's services was justified and if not to what relief/exact amount of compensation was he entitled. After notice to the Petitioner -company they filed a written statement (annexure 'D' to the writ petition) before the Labour Court in which a preliminary objection was taken that a second reference was not competent on the principles of res judicata because the earlier complaint of Jagdish Parkash, Respondent No. 3. under Section 33 -A of the Act had been dismissed in default. On the pleadings of the parties the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court struck the following two issues: 1. Whether the instant reference is without jurisdiction as alleged? 2. Whether the reference is barred by the principle of res judicata? The first issue was not seriously pressed and therefore decided against the Petitioner -company. On merits issue No. 2 was also held against the management. The relevant order of the Labour Court dated the 28th of December, 1971. is annexure 'E' to this petition
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the afore -mentioned order, the petitioning -company has challenged the same by way of the present petition The learned Single Judge before whom the matter was first placed noticed that the real issue falling for adjudication was whether a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act was competent with regard to a dispute which had been earlier raised by a workman in an application under Section 33 -A of the Act before the Labour Court which had been dismissed in default. He opined that the second reference was not barred but since this view ran counter to a Single Bench decision of this Court in Shree Gopal Paper Mills Ltd. v. The State of Punjab (supra) a reference to the larger Bench became inevitable and that is how the matter is before us.;