Delhi High Court
Eagle Fashions vs Secretary (Labour) & Others on 24 July, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1999)ILLJ232DEL
Author: R.C. Lahoti
Bench: R.C. Lahoti
ORDER
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the. order of reference dated August 11, 1995, Annexure P-1, whereby the following dispute has been referred to the Labour Court by Respondent No. 1 in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 10(1)(c) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
"Whether the services of S/Shri Ch. Brijveer Singh, Pradeep Kumar, K. R. Sagar, Sudhir Kumar, Subhash Dubey, Mohd. Akbar and Vyas Gupta have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the Management and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect ?"
According to the Petitioner, the services of Respondents 2 to 8, claiming to be workers of the Petitioner industry were never terminated. The Petitioner alleges Respondents 2 to 8 having committed some misconduct which has been subject matter of domestic enquiry wherein the Enquiry Officer has submitted the report and further action thereon has been held back in 2 view of the pendency of the present petition.
The principal ground on which challenge has been laid on the order of reference is that the terms of reference presume employment of Respondents 9 to 8 having been terminated and seeks adjudication on whether such termination was illegal or unjustified on the part of the Management. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that there was no material available with the appropriate Government for arriving at a finding of the employment of Respondents 2 to 8 having been terminated and as such the question of seeking adjudication on the legality or the justness thereof did not arise.
2. The learned counsel for Respondents 2 to 8 has supported the order of reference including the terms thereof.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material brought on record, we are satisfied that the terms of reference have not been properly drawn up and therefore the order of reference is vitiated.. The Full Bench decision of this Court in India Tourism Development Corporation v. Delhi Administration, 1982 LIC 1309 is an authority for the proposition that the terms of reference should clearly spell out the real dispute between the parties and if that be not so, the order of reference would be liable to be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court as the Labour Court would not travel beyond the reference and decide the real question in dispute.
4. When the factum of employment and termination itself were in dispute, the terms of reference could not have been so framed as to presume the employment and its termination and confining the reference merely to adjudication of illegality or unjustness thereof. We are of the opinion that the order of reference has been drawn up without application of mind and hence is vitiated.
5. The petition is allowed. The impugned order of reference Annexure P-1 is quashed. However, it will he open to the appropriate Government to draw up a fresh order of reference and recast the terms of reference if after hearing the parties it be satisfied that an industrial dispute does exist between the parties requiring a reference under Section 10 of the Act.
6. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to the costs.