Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 876 (MP)

S. R. F. LTD. v. STATE OF M. P.

2019-12-18

RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, SHEEL NAGU

body2019
ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri Kuldeep Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri K. N. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Rinku Shakya, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Present intra-Court appeal preferred under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, assails the order dated 17-10-2019 of learned Single Judge passed in W. P. No. 3070/2017 while exercising writ as well as supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution disposing of the petition in question in terms of the directions contained in the Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and another, 2016(3) M.P.L.J. 117 inter alia allowing the Labour Court to decide the question of maintainability of the reference made by appropriate Government as a preliminary issue before dwelling upon merits of the matter. 2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant referring to the order of reference dated 17-2-2017, Annexure P-1, submits that there was neither any industrial dispute existing nor apprehended and therefore there was no occasion for the appropriate Government to have referred any industrial dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court. It is submitted that the appropriate Government vide Annexure P-1 referred the dispute in question in the most non-specific and vague manner in derogation of the mandatory provisions of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act. 3.1 Learned counsel for appellant has further drawn attention of this Court to Annexure P-19 (page 159 of Writ Appeal) to demonstrate as to how a perfect valid order of reference ought to be passed. 4. No doubt the reference is to be made only when Industrial Dispute exists or is apprehended but a bare perusal of Annexure P-1 reveals that the Industrial Dispute referred by the appropriate Government is whether the demands made by the Union/respondent No. 2, in its demand letter dated 7-6-2016, are legal and valid or not and if yes then what is the relief due to the Union. Learned counsel for the appellant has also raised the issue of respondent No. 2 being not entitled to raise the dispute as raised in the demand letter. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has also raised the issue of respondent No. 2 being not entitled to raise the dispute as raised in the demand letter. 5. Learned Single Judge has passed the order squarely relying upon the Division Bench decision in the case of Birla Corporation Ltd. (supra) where the Division Bench held that the Labour Court has ample powers to not only decide the dispute on merits but also on the question of its maintainability and its own jurisdiction by holding that the jurisdiction is nothing but incidental and ancillary to the substantive power of adjudication. The relevant paragraph 13 of the said judgment is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience : “13. If the aforesaid legal principle is applied in the facts and circumstance of the present case, we are of the considered view that the question as to whether the reference should be made to the Labour Court or to the Industrial Court or whether the Labour Court to which the reference is made, has jurisdiction to deal with the matter, is a mixed question of law and fact and in our considered view when the Labour Court itself is clothed with the power to decide the question of its own jurisdiction as a preliminary issue, challenge to the order of reference on this count in a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is not required. An objection can be raised before the Labour Court and the Court after framing a preliminary issue can decide this question of jurisdiction, as the question of jurisdiction is nothing but an ‘incidental matter’ which can be answered while adjudicating the dispute by the Labour Court itself.” 6. In view of above, the decision of Division Bench and after considering the submissions of learned counsel for rival parties and perusing the record, this Court sees no reason to take a different view than the one taken by learned Single Judge. 7. Consequently, this Court declines interference in the impugned order and dismisses this intra-Court appeal at the very outset. No cost.