- (1.) HAVING regard to the submissions made in the application (CMCW No. 107/2014), 2 days' delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on admission. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find even a wee bit of reason to consider interference in this appeal. The sum and substance of the matter remains that on an industrial dispute raised by the respondent -workman way back in the year 1988, ultimately, the award came to be made by the Labour Court, Sriganganagar in Labour Dispute Case No. 48/1988 on
(3.) 02.1993. By way of the award, the Labour Court concerned declared the termination of services of the workman illegal and directed for his reinstatement with continuity of services and for according him other benefits as accorded to other similarly circumstanced persons. The writ petition and then special appeal filed in this Court against the award so made were dismissed respectively on 11.01.1994 and 18.02.1994. The workman, thereafter, moved an application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') and during pendency thereof, he also approached the State Government for interpretation of the relief granted to him under the award dated 04.02.1993, whereupon the question was referred by the State Government for adjudication to the Labour Court, Sriganganagar under Section 36A(1) of the Act by the Notification dated 27.08.1998 in the following terms: - " . 12 ( ) !# , and ( (# ) . . .. 48/88 . 4.2.93 0 1 2 ? #& &3 ! 2 #& 7 ? On the question so referred, after due consideration of the matter, the Labour Court concerned finally answered the reference in its award dated 28.09.2001 in Labour Dispute Case No. 42/1999 in the following terms: " : . ! and 2 ( ? B# 2 # 2 : . : 0 . . # :# 2 #& . # &# : 2 E 0 ## ! 2 G ! 2 2 G !G : ! and ## 2, (# . . 2 0 0 #& ! . " Seeking to assail the award so made by the Labour Court concerned, the appellant preferred the writ petition leading to this appeal. It was sought to be contended before the learned Single Judge that a reference under Section 36A(1) of the Act could have been made by the State Government only if any difficulty or doubt arose as to interpretation of any of the provision of an award or settlement; but such a reference could not have been made for the purpose of deciding as to who was the employer of the workman at the time of passing of the award. 4. The learned Single Judge found baseless the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant -petitioner while observing, inter alia, as under: "14. Obviously, the dispute was raised by the petitioner in terms of Section 36A of the Act inasmuch as the respondents by putting there own interpretation to the award attempted to deny the benefits flowing therefrom to the first respondent. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the Labour Court has only clarified that in terms of the award since the termination of the services of the first respondent was held to be illegal by the Labour Court and he was treated to be in continuous service, the petitioner employer is required to take him back on duty with continuity of service and further to extend all benefits which are extended to the workmen engaged at Hanuman Unit, who were transferred to other units of RSRDC. Suffice it to say that the dispute referred by the appropriate Government at the instance of first respondent in terms referred supra, was a creation of petitioner -employer inasmuch as it attempted to defeat the award dated 4.2.93 passed in favour of the petitioner ignoring the unequivocal directions issued by the Labour Court while passing the award." ;