Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 743 (UTT)

Rajpal Singh Solanki v. Presiding Officer

2012-12-07

B.S.VERMA

body2012
JUDGMENT B.S. Verma, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 8.4.2010, which was published on 28.7.2010 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). 2. Briefly stated facts of the case, giving rise to this writ petition are, that on 25.4.2005 the Additional/Deputy Labour Commissioner made a reference under Section 4K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act) for adjudicating the dispute between the petitioner and respondent nos.2 and 3. Said dispute was registered as Adjudication Case No. 120 of 2005 Executive Officer Col. Brown Cambridge School vs. Rajpal Singh Solanki and notices were issued to the parties on 21.12.2005 by the Labour Court, Dehradun. The parties filed their written statements and thereafter the petitioner also filed rejoinder affidavit. In support of their claim, the parties also adduced evidence. 3. It is significant to mention here that on 24.2.2010, the respondent nos.2 and 3 filed an application raising the dispute regarding jurisdiction of the Labour Court on the ground that on 5.7.2005 a notification was issued by the State Government whereby the Educational Tribunal has been established in each district and the District Judge in each district has been empowered to hear the dispute regarding the service matter of the employees working in the schools which are not getting any financial aid from the State Government. The petitioner filed objection against the said application and categorically stated that the Labour Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the case referred by the State Government u/s. 4K of the Act. Vide impugned award dated 8.4.2010, the Labour Court allowed the application of the respondent nos.2 and 3 and in view of notification dated 5.7.2005 held that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the petitioner and respondent nos.2 and 3. 4. Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that since the dispute was raised before the Conciliation Officer in the year 2003, the reference was made u/s. 4K of the Act by the State Government to the Labour Court on 25.4.2005, therefore, in continuation of the reference proceedings the Labour Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute and the said notification dated 5.7.2005 has been applied prospectively not retrospectively. 5. 5. In reply thereto, Sri Sharad Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that the Labour Court has ceases its jurisdiction and it has rightly been held by the Labour Court that the reference is bad in law as the adjudication case was registered on 21.12.2005 after the notification was issued by the State Government. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The Labour Court has committed manifest error of law in allowing the application of the respondents since the notification which was issued by the State Government on 5.7.2005 has been applied prospectively. The workman raised the dispute in the year 2003 which was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court on 25.4.2005 for adjudication. In the present case, date of reference is to be considered and not the date of registration of case and issuance of notice by the Labour Court. Further, since no provision has been made in the notification regarding the pending cases, this is to say, whether the pending cases would be transferred to the District Judge or not, therefore, the Court is of the considered view that the cases which were pending before the Labour Court prior to the issuance of the notification, shall continue with the Labour Court. 8. In view of the discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition is allowed. Award dated 8.4.2010 passed by the Labour Court is set aside. Labour Court is directed to decide the aforesaid adjudication case on merit, after hearing the parties, expeditiously, as far as possible.