AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioners were working with the Municipal Committee, Kapurthala. Their services were terminated in February, 1984. They raised a dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Jalandhar. On the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed the following three issues :
Whether the workmen were discharged as surplus labour force.
Whether termination of the services of the workmen is justified and in order?
Relief.
The claim of the petitioners has, however, been declined on the ground that there is no "evidence to show that the management is an ''industry''". Accordingly, it has been held that the reference was not maintainable. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, the two petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition.
No written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents.
Ms. Sabina, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the maintainability of the reference had not been questioned. By referring to the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent-Committee the learned counsel points out that it had no where been pleaded that the petitioners were not workmen or that the committee did not fall within the definition of ''industry''. She consequently submits that the view taken by the learned Court cannot be sustained. The claim made on behalf of the petitioners has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents.
A perusal of the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents before the Labour Court clearly shows that no objection regarding the status of the petitioners or the maintainability of the reference on the ground that the Municipal Committee was not an industry had been raised. No issue had been framed in that behalf and yet the Labour Court has declined the relief on the ground that the Management is not an industry. The Courts have to find a case pleaded by the parties. No plea that the respondent was not an industry having been raised the Labour Court clearly erred in holding that the reference was not maintainable.
Accordingly, the award dated May 12, 1987, passed by the Labour Court is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Labour Court for a decision on merits. Since the dispute has remained pending for a long time, it should be decided as expeditiously as possible. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.