CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) BOTH these writ petitions have been filed against the same impugned award dated 25. 4. 2000 made by the Labour Court, Udaipur. The workman has filed it on the ground that the Labour Court ought to have reinstated him instead of granting compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The other petition has been filed by the employer on the ground that the award is nullity for want of jurisdiction and even the findings of facts recorded by the Labour Court are perverse, hence it is liable to be quashed.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that the workman raised an industrial dispute that he had worked from 26. 9. 1979 to 28. 2. 1987 continuously with the employer and his services stood terminated w. e. f. 1. 3. 1987 without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act" ). THE Appropriate Government made a reference, vide order dated 29. 7. 1995, to the Labour Court as to whether the termination of services of workman Suresh Chandra w. e. f. 1. 3. 1989 was justified and if not, to what relief he was entitled for. In view of the reference, the workman filed the claim that he had worked from 26. 9. 1979 till 28. 2. 1987 and his services stood terminated with effect from 1. 3. 1987. THE employer disputed the claim of the workman on various grounds, inter alia, that he had worked in different units of the establishment, which were not inter-dependent, rather independent; he had not completed 240 days work in any of the unit in a calendar year counting backward from the date of termination; his services had not bee terminated w. e. f. 1. 3. 1989 and he was not entitled for any relief. After considering the averments made by the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the Labour Court made the award dated 25. 4. 2000 recording the findings of facts that the workman had worked from 26. 9. 1979 to 28. 2. 87; he had completed 240 days in a calendar year counting backward from the date of termination; and the Establishment was the same unit and not different units. As a period of 13 years and two months had passed in between, the Labour Court, instead of granting the relief of reinstatement, awarded a sum of Rs. 38,000/- as the compensation. Hence these petitions. Learned counsel for the parties have raised the same issues which had been raised before the Labour Court. Mr. H. S. Sidhu, learned counsel for the workman, has placed reliance upon a large number of judgments before this Court and submitted that the relief of reinstatement should have been granted instead of awarding the compensation in lieu thereof. On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Jain, learned counsel for the employer, has raised a large number of issues, including the issue of jurisdiction, submitting that the reference had been made as to whether the termination of services of the workman w. e. f. 1. 3. 1989 was justified. According to the workman himself, his services stood terminated w. e. f. 1. 3. 1987. The reference was in respect of termination of services w. e. f. 1. 3. 1989. Thus, the reference itself was bad, therefore, the award is nullity. Mr. Sidhu has submitted that undoubtedly the reference was in respect of termination w. e. f. 1. 3. 1989 and the workman's claim was in respect of termination of his services w. e. f. 1. 3. 1987. The parties led evidence knowing the controversy that the workman had been retrenched w. e. f. 1. 3. 1987. As both the parties were aware of the real dispute, the award cannot be held to be nullity for want of jurisdiction and as the Labour Court itself has considered this issue and came to the conclusion that though the reference was in respect of termination w. e. f. 1. 3. 1989 but it would proceed as if the services stood terminated w. e. f. 1. 3. 1987 as per the claim of the workman and while doing so, the Labour Court itself amended the reference accordingly to do justice between the parties, no interference is required on this count. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that any order passed by any Court without jurisdiction is nullity and such order remains inexecutable and unenforceable. Jurisdiction to deal with a case is a creation of statute and it cannot be created by acquiescence of the party or by the order of the Court. (Vide the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the United Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. Their Workmen (1), In Kesar Singh & Ors. Vs. Sadhu (2), the Apex Court held that a decree without jurisdiction is a nullity and when the matter goes to root of the jurisdiction, it can be raised even in execution proceedings. The finding of a Court or a Tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/inexecuteable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction (Vide State of Gujarat vs. Rajesh Kumar Chimanlal Barot & Anr.
(3.) JURISDICTION cannot be conferred by mere acceptance, acquiescance, consent or by any other means as it can be conferred only by the legislature. Conferring a Court or Authority with jurisdiction, is a legislative function. In Union of India vs. Devki Nandan Aggarawal (4), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "the Court cannot usurp legislative functions. The Court cannot re-write, recast or reframe the legislation for the very good reason that it has no power to legislate. The power to legislate has not been conferred on the Courts. " In Karnal Improvement Trust vs. Prakash Wanti & Anr. (5), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that acquiescence of parties cannot confer jurisdiction upon a court/authority and an erroneous interpretation equally should not be permitted to perpetuate and perpetrate defeating of legislative animation, A similar view has been taken in U. P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. vs. Indure Pvt. Ltd. In Sardar Hasan Siddiqui vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal (7), the Allahabad High Court observed that a Court or a Tribunal cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the Statute. "no amount of acquiescence, waiver or the like can confer jurisdiction which a Tribunal is lacking. The doctrine of nullity will come into operation and any decision taken or given by such a Tribunal will be nullity. " ;