R.S. Narula, J. - (1.) THE effect, construction and true scope of the expression -"for reasons to be stated therein" -occurring in Sub -section (1) of Section 33B of the Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) (as subsequently amended), hereinafter referred to as the Act, calls for decision in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by the management of the Technological Institute of Textiles, Bhiwani, for quashing the award of the Labour Court, Jullundur, dated January 2, 1965 (Annexure 'N'), directing the reinstatement of Hanuman Prasad Seni (hereinafter called the employee), Respondent No. 3, in the service of the Petitioner, and further directing payment of back wages to him.
(2.) THE employee joined the service of the Petitioner on June, 6, 1957. In the appointment letter issued to the employee (Exhibit M. 2 before the Labour Court), it was specifically stated that his employment was subject to notice of one calendar month from either side. Under Rule 13(1) of the Certified standing orders in respect of the Petitioner Institute, it is laid down that the employment of any permanent workman, whether time -rated or piece -rated, may be terminated by thirteen days' notice or by payment of thirteen days wages in lieu thereof by either side. The employee contracted tuberculosis and therefore, remained on leave on medical grounds from June 28 to October 22, 1960. After working for barely one day on resumption of his duties on October 23 in that year, he again proceeded on thirteen days' leave. He finally resumed work on November 7, 1960. On May 1, 1961, he again applied for leave from the 19th of that month to the 30th of June. 1961, on grounds of health. His application was rejected. Soon thereafter, the Petitioner served the employee with a notice, dated May 23, 1961 (Annexure 'B'). wherein it was stated that having been a patient of tuberculosis, the employee's efficiency of work had gone down, and that since the employee was not feeling well in those days. It was not in the interest of his other co -workers that he should continue in service. In the said communication, the employee was, therefore, informed that his services would stand terminated after the expiry of one month from the date of receipt of the letter under standing -order 13(1) applicable to the workmen of the Petitioner Institute. After the termination of his services, a request was made on his behalf by Respondent No. 2 Union on June 24, 1961 (Annexure 'C') to reconsider the matter, and to allow the employee to continue in service. It was specifically pleaded on behalf of the employee that the management of the Petitioner Institute could not state that there were any symptoms of any disease in the employee "in the absence of any medical examination." In the Petitioner's reply, dated July 26, 1961 (Annexure 'D') it was stated that the services of the employee had been terminated as he was serving some symptoms of tuberculosis and his efficiency of work had gone down on account of his bad health. It was, however, stated that if the employee was willing to submit to a medical examination, he should approach the Medical Officer incharge of the Civil Hospital within a week of the receipt of the letter for medical examination at Petitioner's expense. It was added by the Petitioner in the said letter that in case the employee was found to be fit for duty in the mills, the Petitioner would be willing to reconsider the matter, but that if the employee did not submit to medical examination within a week, it would be presumed that he had no intention of getting himself medically examined. The employee admittedly did not submit to medical examination. In letter, dated August 7, 1961 (Annexure 'E'), the second Respondent Union stated that the employee had no symptoms of tuberculosis, and as such the question of his undergoing any medical examination did not arise. The Petitioner wrote back on August 9, 1961 (Annexure 'F') to Respondent No. 2, that the second Respondent was now backing out of the suggestion to have the employee medically examined, and that, therefore, the termination of the employee's services under standing order 13(1) of the Institute was legal and justified. After some further correspondence between the Petitioner on the one hand and Respondent No. 2 on the other, and after an abortive attempt of the Conciliation Officer to have the matter settled, the following dispute between the Petitioner and Respondents No. 2 and 3 was referred by the Governor of Punjab to the Labour Court, Rohtak, for adjudication: Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of Shri Hanuman Parshad Seni is justified and in order? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled? A copy of the notification issued under Section 10(1) (c) of the Act in this respect and published in the Punjab Government Gazette, dated November 21, 1961, is Annexure 'H' to the writ petition. When the Labour Court, Rohtak, had recorded the evidence of both parties, and had fixed the case for hearing of arguments, the staff Union made an application to the Punjab Government for transferring the case from that Labour Court. After calling for the comments of the Presiding officer of the Labour Court, Rohtak; and perusing and considering the same; but without issuing any notice of the application for transfer to the Petitioner Institute, the Punjab Government directed the transfer of the case from Labour Court, Rohtak to the Labour Court, Jullundur, by notification , dated August 24, 1962, wherein de novo proceedings were directed to be held by the transferee Court in the following words: Whereas an industrial dispute between the workmen and the management of Messrs Technological Institute of Textiles, Bhiwani, was referred to the Labour Court, Rohtak,... for adjudication; And whereas a petition of transfer of the aforesaid reference was received from the workers Union on which comments of the Labour Court, Rohtak, were also invited; And whereas on a careful consideration of the comments of the said Labour Court, the Governor of Punjab is of the opinion that in the interest of justice the proceedings in the aforesaid reference, pending before the Labour Court, be withdrawn and transferred to the Labour Court, Jullundur; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub -section (1) of Section 33 -B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947), the Governor of Punjab is pleased to withdraw the proceedings in respect of the aforesaid industrial dispute from the Labour Court, Rohtak, and transfer the same to the Labour Court, Jullundur, which will proceed with the reference de novo. When in pursuance of the above quoted order of transfer of proceedings the parties appeared before Respondent No. 1, an additional written statement, dated October 29, 1962, was filed by the Petitioner challenging the validity and legality of the order of transfer. From the pleadings of the parties, Respondent No. 1 originally framed the following two issues: (1) Whether the order of the Government in transferring this case to this Court is invalid and opposed to law for any of the reasons stated in paragraph 6 of the written statement? If so, what is its effect? (2) Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of Shri Hanuman Parshad Seni is justified and in order? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled? Subsequently the Petitioner made an application, dated November 19, 1962, alleging that the dispute in question was not an industrial dispute. This led to the framing of an additional issue which was issue No. (3) and was in the following terms: Whether the dispute raised isn't an industrial dispute? By his impugned award, dated January 2, 1965 (Annexure 'N') Shri Manohar Singh, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jullundur, decided all the three issues against the Petitioner and ordered the Petitioner to reinstate the employee on the job he was holding when his services were terminated, and also awarded full back wages to him from the date of the termination of his services, i. e.. from June 24, 1961, to the date on which he might be reinstated by the Petitioner Institute. The employee was further allowed the benefit of continued service. The award, dated January 2, 1965 was published in the official gazette, dated January 15. 1965.
(3.) THIS writ petition which was filed or March 5, 1965, for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned award, was admitted by the Motion Bench (S. B. Capoor and I. D. Dua, JJ.) on March 8, 1965. The petition has been contested by Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 who have filed a joint return to the rule issued in the case. Though the findings of the Labour Court en all the three issues had been impugned and assailed in the writ petition, the attack on the findings on issue No. 3 was expressly abandoned by Mr. Ganga Parshad Jam. the learned Counsel for the Petitioner at the hearing of this writ petition .,;