NATIONAL ASPHALT PRODUCTS CONSTRUCTIONS CO Vs. N M KOTHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition field under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging the order dated 2-4-1971 passed by the 4th Labour Court, Bombay, on a preliminary point raised by the petitioner in a reference being Reference (IDA) No. 301 of 1968 pending before it.

(2.) The relevant facts leading to the present petition are as follows :

(3.) The petitioner-company terminated services of three of its employees. An employee by name A. Raman who had joined its service on 28-2-1966 was retrenched by the company with effect from 14-5-66. Another employee by name Narashimalu who had joined its service in 1960 was dismissed from service after holding an inquiry into his misconduct with effect from 6-8-1966 and the third employee by name Lawrence Carvalho was discharged from service with effect from 19-12-1966 after he had put in service for about two years. Thereafter, according to the second respondent-union, viz., the Rashtriya Mazdoor Union, they raised an industrial dispute on behalf of all the said three workmen by serving upon the company a notice of demand dated 10-4-1967 for reinstatement of the workmen with full back wages and continuity of service. The company having not complied with the said demand, the matter was taken up in conciliation and the Conciliation Officer submitted his failure report to the Government. After receipt of the failure report, the third respondent-State made a reference of the industrial dispute by its order dated 24-9-1968 by which the industrial dispute came to be referred to the first respondent-Labour Court. The union field a statement of claim before the Labour Court on 9-4-1969 and the company field its written statement in reply to the said statement of claim on 22-7-1969. By the said written statement, the company raised a preliminary point that the dispute referred under the said reference order dated 24-9-1968 was not an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), but was only an individual dispute. It appears that thereafter the Labour Court decided to hear the said point as a preliminary point. The company thereafter field its affidavit on the said preliminary point on 15-12-1969 and in reply thereto, the union through its the General Secretary field its affidavit on 9-2-1970. After hearing the parties and perusing the relevant documents produced by the parties, the first respondent labour Court by its order dated 2-4-1971 held that what was referred as per the impugned order was an industrial dispute within the meaning of the said Act. The Labour Court also held that in view of the amendment of the said Act by introduction of S. 2A, in any event the dispute would become an industrial dispute and hence the reference was tenable. It is against this order that the present petition has been field.