Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 602 (UTT)

Munjal Showa Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-09-21

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The petitioners before this Court, in all the above writ petitions, are the employer/company, namely, Munjal Showa Ltd., which is a registered company under the Companies Act. Since all these writ petitions relate to a common issue, therefore, all these petitions are being heard and decided by this common judgment. 2. For the sake of convenience, however, the facts of WPMS No. 2604 of 2016 are being taken into consideration for the disposal of these matters. 3. The petitioner is an employer of which respondent No. 3 – Harendra Kumar Verma is a workman. The services of respondent No.3 have been dispensed with in the year 2013. Thereafter, workman/respondent No.3 has now raised industrial dispute, and subsequently, the matter has been referred to the Labour Court, Haridwar vide order dated 23.05.2016. This reference order has been passed by the Additional Labour Commissioner, Dehradun under Section 4K of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, which is applicable in the State of Uttarakhand as well. 4. The reference order is primarily an administrative order in nature and any interference by this Court can be made on a very limited ground. The case of the petitioner/employer before this Court is that a show cause notice was given to respondent No.3 and thereafter departmental enquiry was held wherein the charges against respondent No.3 were found to be correct, inasmuch as, he had indulged in instigating other workers not to do the work in the factory. Admittedly, the matter was sent for reconciliation and there was an objection of the employer that respondent No.3 is a trainee. 5. The case of the petitioner/employer would be that respondent No. 3 was only a ‘trainee’ and he was not a workman, and therefore, his services have been dispensed with. Therefore, there is no industrial dispute, as the respondent No. 3 is a trainee, and therefore, the matter cannot be referred for labour court. The records available before this Court show that initially, when a show cause notice was given to respondent No. 3, it was nowhere stated by the petitioner/employer that respondent No. 3 is working as a trainee or an apprentice. It is mentioned only in the subsequent order that respondent No. 3 is a trainee. However, it is not the ‘nomenclature’ which matters, but the actual ‘work’ which would designate him as a workman. It is mentioned only in the subsequent order that respondent No. 3 is a trainee. However, it is not the ‘nomenclature’ which matters, but the actual ‘work’ which would designate him as a workman. This has to be seen by the Labour Court, as to the actual status of respondent No. 3. 6. The petitioner would always be at liberty to raise all these objections before the Labour court concerned regarding the status of respondent No. 3. The Labour court will hear both the parties and dispose of the matter, in accordance with law, after hearing the objections of the petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed.