M/s Samarpan Printers vs Vinod Kumar & Others

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

The petitioner takes exception to the order of reference (Annexure P-3) made by the Labour Officer, Dharamshala on the ground that the same

does not incorporate all the points of the defence as raised by the petitioner.

It is more than settled that the Labour Officer is only required to make a reference and not to formulate points or issues for determination for the

Reference Court.

Reference made by the Labour Officer in this regard reads as under:-

“Whether the claim submitted by Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Puran Chand R/o VPO Bhugnara, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. under Section

17(1) of Working Journalists and Other News Paper Employees (Conditions to Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 amounting

Rs.41,09,685.00 is legal and justified if not what amount of benefit of claim the above worker is entitled to from the above Employer.â€​

A plain reading of the aforesaid reference makes it absolutely clear that the Labour Court will be required to adjudicate not only the issue of

maintainability of the reference, but even the other questions like delay, latches and entitlement etc. would also required to be determined. After all,

reference is being made on the legality as also justifiability of the claim.

In such circumstances, it shall be open for the petitioner to raise all the questions as were raised in the reply to the application filed under Section

17(1) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 before the Labour

Cout-cum-Industrial Tribunal.

With these clarifications, the instant petition is disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,

also stand disposed of.