BHANDARI, J. - (1.) BY these writ petitions, a challenge is made to the order dated 11.9.2013 whereby applications moved by the petitioner -union for interim relief were declined.
(2.) LEARNED counsel submits that a dispute was referred to the labour court by invoking section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short Act of 1947'). After submission of claim and written statement, documentary evidence was led. The argument was heard to find out fairness of enquiry. Learned labour court found enquiry to be unfair and, as per prayer of the management, allowed to lead evidence to prove charges. At that stage, petitioner union moved an application for grant of interim relief till disposal of the reference. The aforesaid application was dismissed holding that labour court has no authority and right to grant interim relief. Section 10(4) of the Act of 1947 gives ample power to the labour court/Industrial Tribunal to grant interim relief if it is incidental to the dispute. The learned court below thus failed to exercise its jurisdiction hence impugned order may be set aside with a direction to the respondents to grant interim relief to the member of the petitioner union till reference is decided. Learned counsel referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ''Hotel Imperial, New Delhi and ors vs. Hotel Workers' Union '' (1959 (II) LLJ 544 (SC)). Therein, the jurisdiction of the labour court for grant of interim relief was recognised, however, ignoring the aforesaid, impugned order has been passed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel has further referred the judgment of this court in the case of ''Chief Manager, Ajmer vs. Hitlar Prasad and anr '' (2013 LLR 376 = 2013 (4) RLW 3410) and, lastly, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ''Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. vs. Shri Ram Gopal Sharma and ors '' (2002 LAB IC 513 = RLW 2002(3) SC 369).;