Jaishree Thakur, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 12.6.2001.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 raised an industrial dispute and the same was referred by the Appropriate Government to the Labour Court. By exercising powers under Section 19(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947'), the State Government referred the following question for decision: - "Whether the termination of Shri Darshan Ram s/o. Shri Mansha Ram, Daily Wager, Peon by the employer Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Department, Sub -Division Shri Karanpur, District Sriganganagar was legal and valid? If not, then what relief, the workman is entitled to - (Translated version)
(3.) THE respondent No. 1 filed it claim petition before the Labour Court alleging that he had been appointed on 6.6.1986 as a Class IV Employee and had worked upto 1.12.1988, thereby completed two years and six months of service. His services were terminated in violation of procedure laid down under Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act of 1947 and, therefore, he claimed reinstatement in service with full back wages. The petitioner herein filed reply to the claim petition denying all the allegations raised in the claim petition. After hearing the matter, the Labour Court passed an award on 12.6.2001 and ordered that the retrenchment of the respondent was in violation of the provisions of the Act of 1947 and thereby would be entitled to continuity of service with 30% back wages. The award was to be executed within a period of three months failing which the workman would be entitled for 12% interest. Aggrieved against the said award, the present writ petition has been filed. The counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the impugned award is unsustainable because the same is beyond the reference made by the Appropriate Government. It is argued that the reference which was made for adjudication was only to decide whether the retrenchment of service of respondent No. 1 is just and proper and if not, to what extent of relief, he would be entitled to? It is argued that the learned Labour Court has suo moto concluded the date of retrenchment to be from 1.12.1988 and in these circumstances, when there is no mention of the date of retrenchment in the reference order, the Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in holding the date of retrenchment to be 1.12.1988. It is further argued that the findings of the Labour Court are erroneous to the extent that there was no occasion to arrive at the conclusion that there was a violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947.;