Sambhu Nath and Sons Ltd., Shahbad Markanda vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haryana Rohtak and others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This writ petition is directed against the award of the Labour Court, Rohtak, dated 16th June, 1972, copy Annexure ''G'' with the writ petition.

The petitioner-management M/s Sambu Nath and Sons Ltd., Shahbad Markanda, terminated the services of their workmen, respondents Nos. 2 to 6 on 8th March, 1978, because it was alleged that they adopted go-slow tactics without the least justification''s as to paralyse the working of the petitioner-factory. Since the workmen concerned were aggrieved by this order of dismissal, it gave raise to an industrial dispute, and the same was referred by the State Government vide Gazette Notification dated 4th August, 1971 to the Labour Court at Rohtak. The disputes referred to the Labour Court were as under:-

Whether the termination of services of Shri Tulsi Ram was justified and in order? If not, to what relief is he entitled?

Whether the termination of services of Shri Narinjan Singh was justified and in order? If not, to what relief is he entitled?

Whether the termination of services of Shri Naresh Kumar was justified and in order, if not to what relief is he entitled?

Whether the termination of services of Shri Sampat Dass was justified and in order? If not, to what relief is he entitled?

Whether the termination of services of Shri Jagjiwan Baksh Singh, was justified and in order? If not to what relief is he entitled?

In the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner-management it was pleaded that workmen never served the management with a demand notice, and, therefore, no industrial dispute came up in existence which could be referred for adjudication. On merits, it was pleaded that on 8th March, 1971, the circumstances went beyond the control of the management because of the go-slow tactics adopted by the workmen concerned, so-much so that the Management could not make an enquiry before taking action against them. It was also prayed by the Management that the Court may allow it to lead evidence in order to prove their bona fides. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

Whether the reference is invalid?

Whether the termination of services of the workmen concerned was justified and in order? If not, to what relief is he entitled?

Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the workmen as it was found as a fact that the workmen did serve notices of demand on the Management with regard to all the five workmen and also produced the acknowledgement due receipts market Exhibits D.W. 1 to D.W. 5. Even the General Manager, Shri Diwan Chand Kapoor, who used to appear during the conciliation proceedings was required to produce record with regard to the termination of the services of the workmen there but thereafter he did not appear. There was no rebuttal to this evidence and consequently it was held that the reference was valid one. On issue No. 2, the learned Labour Court after discussing the evidence, come to the conclusion that the management was not in a position to assist the Court for the purpose of determining whether the service of five workmen were rightly terminated for the reasons originally given in the written statement filed by them as far hack as 1971. Since the Management was not in a position to lead any evidence to prove that the termination of the services of the workmen concerned were justified for the reasons stated in the written statement, there was no other alternative but to accept the evidence of the workmen regarding their claim. Since their services were terminated without disclosing to them or giving them any charge-sheet or any opportunity to show cause as to why their services should not be terminated, the order of termination was held to be illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The plea of the management before the Labour Court that the workmen had been paid their dues in full and final settlement, was not accepted by the Lalour Court on the ground that no such plea was ever taken by the Management in their written statement, and, consequently, no issue was framed to cover this objection. Ultimately, tie order of termination was set aside and the workmen were reinstated with continuity of service with half back wages.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised certain objections in the writ petition, which do not find any mention in the impugned award of the Labour Court.

The objections which were not taken before the Labour Court cannot be allowed to be agitated for the first time in this writ petition, as under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the jurisdiction of this Court is very limited.

5 The only other contention raised in this writ petition is that Shri P.N. Thukral, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haryana, Rohtak, had no jurisdiction to decide the industrial dispute between the parties as he was not validly appointed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, one and the same person could not be appointed as the Presiding Officer of two different Labour Courts under the Industrial Disputes Act and since Shri P.N. Thukral was also the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court at Faridabad, he could not act at the same time the Presiding Officer for the Labour Court at Rohtak. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on Messrs Gedore Tools (I) Private Ltd. v. The State of Haryana and others 1969 S.L.R. 863. After going through the said judgment, I do not find any force in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In that case the appointment of presiding Officer at Faridabad after the Labour Court at Rohtak was abolished, was held to be illegal as no notification was issued transferring him to Faridabad. In the present case, the position is quite different. Shri P.N. Thukral was already working as a Presiding Officer for the Labour Court at Faridabad and there could not be any objection for the same person to be the Presiding Officer for the Labour Court at Rohtak. In any case, no such objection was ever taken when the proceedings were pending before the Labour Court at Rohtak. It has been held by this Court in Karnal, Kaithal Co-operative Society v. The State (1958) 60 P.L.R. 425, that the question of jurisdiction should be raised before the Tribunal itself before it can be allowed to be taken for the first time in the writ petition. It has been observed therein that "it is a recognised practice of Courts that when a person challenges the jurisdiction of a tribunal, the Court declines to examine the question until the question has been examined and pronounced upon by the tribunal itself. The superior Court should not proceed on the assumption that the tribunal will go beyond its jurisdiction should therefore, refrain from interfering before the inferior tribunal has had an opportunity of considering whether any of the matters in controversy between the parties falls with its jurisdiction". In this view of the matter, I do not find any force in this contention either.

For the reasons recorded above, this writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs.