Chhota Singh vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation

N.K. Sodhi, J.—On a dispute raised by the petitioner regarding his alleged illegal termination, the same was referred for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala. The petitioner impleaded Depot Manager, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Sangrur as a respondent on whom demand notice had also been served. A preliminary objection was raised before the Labour Court that the reference was not maintainable as the proper party, namely, the employer had not been impleaded before it. The Labour Court upheld this preliminary objection and declined to answer the reference on merits. It is this order that has been challenged in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am satisfied that the impugned order of the Labour Court dated 1.9.1988 is not sustainable. In response to the notice issued by the Labour Court it was the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (for short, the Corporation) which filed the written statement on merits and con- tested the reference. At any rate, if the Labour Court was of the opinion that the Corporation had not been properly impleaded, it should have exercised its jurisdiction to summon it u/s 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with a view to effectively dispose of the reference on merits. The Labour Court was, therefore, not justified in leaving the reference unanswered on merits on this hyper technical ground.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed, impugned order set aside and the case remanded to the Labour Court-respondent with direction to dispose of the reference on merits in accordance with law. Since the matter pertains to the year 1985, the Labour Court must dispose of the same at the earliest but not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner will have his costs which are assessed at Rs. 500/-.