VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J. - (1.) IN this Writ petition, the award of the Labour Court (Annexure -7) made in Reference Case No. 12/1987 dated 25.10.2000 is sought to be quashed. By this award, the Labour Court disposed of the reference on the preliminary issue of non -maintainability of reference and did not consider other issues which had been framed for consideration and adjudication. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the award on the ground that the Labour Court could not have dismissed the Reference on the ground of maintainability as the Labour Court was legally bound to answer the Reference and thus, to adjudicate all the issues that were framed by it after hearing the parties. The learned Labour Court found the Reference not maintainable on the ground that the Reference was stale,
(2.) IN the aforesaid circumstances, the questions to be answered in this writ petition are (i) whether the Labour Court can examine the staleness of the Reference and can dispose of the reference holding that it is non -maintainable (ii) whether the Labour Court is required to answer all the issues and (iii) whether the High Court can interfere with the impugned award? The question aforesaid arose out of the simply facts that the petitioner, K. Sharma, claims himself to be a workman (Ticket No. 2254/02029/1). He was permanently appointed on 1.12.1962 by the respondent TELCO and since then, he was working continuously. On 19.11.1974, he received a charge -sheet issued by the Superintendent under item No. 24(X) of the Standing Order and was called upon to submit his explanation in writing by 4th December, 1974. According to the petitioner, without waiting for his explanation and without considering the explanation submitted by him, Mr. H.K. Akhori was appointed the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges, which, according to the petitioner, was a motivated act on the part of the charge -sheeting Authority and the enquiry was sham and simply an eye wash, perfunctory and one sided in utter violation of the principles of natural justice, in which the petitioner was not allowed to defend himself and ultimately, on the basis of the enquiry report, the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 15.11.1974. Thereafter the petitioner raised a labour dispute by writing letter to the respondent No. 2. sending a copy of that to the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Jamshedpur, Annexure -1. By Annexure -2 dated 5.12.1975, the petitioner was informed by the Under Secretary to the Government in the Department of Labour and Employment, Bihar, that the Government did not consider it fit to refer the case for adjudication. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner again filed a representation for reviewing the case, Annexure -3. Then it appears that by a letter dated 11.12.1976, Annexure -4, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur, on the basis of the representation made by the petitioner, sent a letter to the respondent -management for appearing before him on 20.12.1976 at 11.00 a.m. for hearing on the matter of the representation of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner allegedly repeatedly visited the office of the Labour Commissioner and Deputy Labour Commissioner, requesting them to refer the matter to the Labour Court, but nothing happened, yet ultimately by Annexure -5 dated 14.4.1987, the following reference was made by the Government : - -Whether the termination of services of Shri Kauleshwar Sharma, Progress Supervisor, Telco, Ticket No. 2254/ 02029/1, Jamshedpur, is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to -
(3.) AFTER the Reference, which was numbered as Reference Case No. 12/1987, the petitioner as well as the respondents filed their written statements before the Labour Court, including the rejoinders to the pleadings. In the written statement, the petitioner challenged the domestic enquiry as well as the order of dismissal and the respondents challenged the validity of the Reference and also averred that the petitioner was not a workman, besides taking a plea of staleness of the Reference. When this writ petition was filed against the award, the respondents - managment took the same pleas in this writ petition by filing counter -affidavit which they had taken before the Labour Court. It is also relevant that the petitioner has not taken his dues from the management till date.;