- (1.) By notification No. ID/PT59-A-68/60391, dated December 12, 1968, published in the Punjab Government Gazette Ordinary, Labour Department, on December 27, 1968, the President of India referred the following dispute between the workmen and the management of Municipal Committee, Patiala, to the Labour Court, Jullundur, under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , (hereinafter called the Act) for adjudication :- "Whether termination of services of Matoo Ram, Ram Dev and Dirg Mal Mallies is justified and in order ? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation are they entitled ?" This notification is signed by Shri N.N. Vohra, Labour Commissioner, Punjab. On the basis of this notification the Labour Court, Jullundur, made its award on April 21, 1969, which was published in the Punjab Government Gazette dated May 16, 1969. The present petition has been filed by the Municipal Committee, Patiala, challenging the award. This writ petition was admitted on July 29, 1969, and a written statement has been filed by Shri N.N. Vohra on behalf of respondent 2.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the validity of the reference on the ground that the Labour Commissioner is not entitled to sign the reference on behalf of the President of India. It is submitted that the Rules of Business of the Government of Punjab, 1966, framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India, prescribe that a notification should be issued in the name of the Governor and should be authenticated by the Secretary, Additional Secretary, Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary or such other officer empowered by the Governor in that behalf. Shri N.N. Vohra, Labour Commissioner, Punjab, is not a person so authorised. In reply, Shri Vohra has stated in the return that the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, was vested with powers exercisable under Sections 10 and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act in relation to industrial disputes falling under Section 2-A of aforesaid Act, by the State Government vide Punjab Government, Labour Department notification No. 13397-I&E-III-67/28416, dated August 11, 1967, published in the Punjab Government Gazette dated August 25, 1967. This notification reads as under :- "In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to direct that powers exercisable by the State Government under Sections 10 and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , in relation to an industrial dispute falling under Section 2-A of the aforesaid Act, shall be exercised by the Labour Commissioner, Punjab also with immediate effect." This notification does not authorise the Labour Commissioner to authenticate a notification issued in the name of the Governor Punjab, or the President of India during the President's rule. The Labour Commissioner under this notification should himself in his own name make a reference of an industrial dispute falling under Section 2-A of the said Act to a Labour Court. The notification whereby a reference was made in the present case is not issued by the Labour Commissioner in his own name as a delegate of the State Government but he only authenticated it as a notification issued in the name of the President of India. He had no power of such authentication. Secondly the dispute which was being referred to the Labour Court for adjudication was not an individual dispute under Section 2-A of the Act but a collective dispute relating to three workmen whose cause had been exposed by the Union of the Workmen. This dispute was, therefore, out of scope of Section 2-A of the Act. The Labour Commissioner was, therefore, not authorised under the notification dated August 11, 1967, to refer such a dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Act. Viewed from whatever, angle, the notification making the reference of the dispute to the Labour Court in the present case was not made by the appropriate authority and was, therefore, without jurisdiction and a nullity. The Labour Court could not assume jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute in pursuance of that notification. The award made by the Labour Court, is, therefore, liable to be quashed on this ground.
(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner, Municipal Committee, did not take this objection to the validity of the reference before the Labour Court and should not be permitted to urge it in this petition. From the award I find that the Municipal Committee, Patiala, did not appear before the Labour Court to contest the reference and, therefore, no objection with regard to the validity of the reference was taken. Since the validity of the notification making the reference concerns the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to adjudicate upon the dispute, it is open to the petitioner to raise this objection in the writ petition. Since the reference was without jurisdiction, and a nullity, all proceedings taken on its basis and in pursuance thereof are a nullity and thus liable to be quashed. I find no merit in the submission made by the counsel for the respondents and repel the same.;