FEDDERS LLOYD CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. LT GOVERNOR DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Delhi Administration passed on the 28th November, 1968 under section 10(l)(c) and 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter called 'the Act'), copy of which being annexure 'A' to the writ petition, referring to the Labour Court at Delhi, presided over by Shri R. K. Baweja, the following industrial dispute :

(2.) The undisputed facts leading to the above reference are as follows: Respondent No. 3 Ajab Singh was employed by the petitioner-company as Security Officer from 22-11-1961 till 4-7-1967, when he is said to have expressed his inability to work and resigned. He was, therefore, relieved of his duties on 4-7- 1967. On 31-8-1967 ex-gratia payment was made to respondent No. 3 on the basis of compensation generally paid to workers who are retrenched from service. Respondent No. 3 accepted the payment and gave receipt in full and final settlement of all his claims. On 18-11-1967, respondent No. 3 requested for a service certificate which was issued by the petitioner-company, a copy being at annexure 'C' to the written statement. The petitioner-company has stated therein that respondent No. 3 had resigned from service and he has endorsed thereon that he received the certificate with thanks. Respondent No. 3 did not thereafter make any demand on the petitioner-company directly. He, however, appears to have written to the Labour Commissioner Delhi a letter, as per annexure 'D' to the written-statement, on 10-1-1968 stating that an industrial dispute existed between him and the petitioner-company and it was expedient that the matters specified in the enclosed statement should be referred to industrial adjudication. In the attached statement, it was stated that respondent No. 3's services were terminated by way of retrenchment by the petitioner-company and that the said retrenchment was wrongful and arbitrary. It was prayed that the said retrenchment should be set aside and respondent No. 3 should be reinstated in the service.

(3.) The petitioner came to know of the above only when a notice was received by it on 12-1-1968 from the Conciliation Officer, Delhi, calling upon the petitioner company to appear before the Conciliation Officer on 17-1-1968. The petitioner company resisted the claim of respondent No. 3 during the conciliation proceedings on the ground that there was no industrial dispute between the parties which could be referred to industrial adjudication. Nevertheless, the Delhi Administration made order of reference reproduced above. This order of reference was challenged by the petitioner-company on the following grounds :-