Punjab-Haryana High Court
Indo Graphic Art Machinery Company (P) ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court-Ii And ... on 28 November, 1990
Equivalent citations: (1991)99PLR17
JUDGMENT M.R. Agnihotri, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of C. W. P. Nos. 12643 of 1989 and 1543 of 1990, as both of them have bean Sled against one and the same order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad, on 25th May, 1989, by which the earlier orders dated 19th/21st May, 1989, passed by the Labour Court In references Nos. 327 and 357 of 1985 have been reviewed and directions issued to decide the matter afresh.
2. Briefly stated, one Rewa Dhar was appointed by M/s Printers House Private Ltd. on 1st May, 1981, as Assembly Fitter. He served a demand notice on 18th March, 1985, alleging that his services were wrongly terminated on 21st January, 1985. Similarly, one Kanwar Pal was appointed in July, 1981, as a Fitter and was discharged from service on 22nd March, 1985. In both the cases separate references No. 327 and 357 of 1985, were made on 15th July, 1985, for adjudication of their industrial dispute as to whether termination of their services was legal and, if not, to what relied they were entitled.
3. Learned Labour Court-II, Faridabad, after considering the evidence produced before it, found that both the workmen, Rewa Dhar and Kanwar Pal wore employees of M/s Printers House Private Ltd Though their claim was against this very concern, the employer management did not care to contest the said references. Rather one Pardeep Sharma who had been attending the proceedings stated that he did not represent respondent M/s Printers House Private Ltd. and was there only to watch the interest of M/s Indo Graphic Art Machinery Company (P) Ltd. However, both the workmen categorically stated that they had no grievance or claim against M/s Indo Graphic Art Machinery Company (P) Ltd., as their claim was against M/s Printers House Private Ltd. It was thereupon that the learned Labour Court accepted the references on 19th/21st May, 1988, and quashed the orders of dismissal passed on 21st. Jan, 1985, in the case of Rewa Dhar, and on 22nd March, 1985, in the case of Kanwar Pal. Resultantly, both the workmen were ordered to be reinstated in their jobs with continuity of service and full back wages and other benefits arising out of their employment.
4. Becoming wiser after the said award, M/s Printers House Private Ltd, made two applications for review of the aforesaid order dated 19th/21st May, 1988, on the ground that in fact the workman were employees of M/s Indo Graphic Art Machinery Company (P) Ltd. which was subsidiary to M/s Printers House Private Ltd As such, the direction, if any, should have been issued by the Labour Court against M/s Indo Graphic Art Machinery Company (P)Ltd. Quite surprisingly the learned Labour Court has accepted the review applications and by ordering the payment of some compensation to the workmen vide its order dated 23th May, 1989, vacated the earlier order, and issued directions for impleading M/s Indo Graphic Art Machinery Company (P) Ltd in both the references for proceeding further in the matter. This or.1er of the Labour Court has been challenged by M/s Indo Graphic Art Machinery Company (P) Ltd. and Rewa Dhar mainly on she grourd that after the award had been pronounced, the learned Labour Court had neither any jurisdiction nor legal justification whatsoever for reviewing and reopening the matter and on that basis the impugned order was liable to be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari.
5. Both the petitions have been contested by M/s Printers House Private Ltd. to justify the impugned order on the ground-that review of the earlier order was necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the learned Labour Court wanted to ascertain as to who was the real employer of the workmen, that is,. M/s Printers House Private Ltd., or M/s Indo Graphic Art Machinery Company (P) Ltd.
6. It has been settled by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in The Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. The Calcutta Electric Supply Workers' Union, A.I R. 1959 S.C. 1191, Pottery Mezdoor Panchayat v. The Perfect Pettery Co. Ltd., A I. R. 1979 S. C. 1356 and Grindlays Bank Ltd v. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal, A. I. R. 1981 S. C. 656, that the Labour Court could not travel beyond the terms of reference and its duty was only to adjudicate upon the dispute which had been referred to it. In the present case, the dispute referred being, whether the termination of services of Shri Reva Dhar (Shri Kanvar Pal in the second case) was legal end, if not, what relief he is entitled to,'. Obviously, it was neither within the jurisdiction nor was it necessary for the Labour Court to embark upon an inquiry as to who was the real employer of the workmen. Whether one was the principal employer or the other was subsidiary, or who out of the two was the real employer, were matters which were neither referred to for adjudication to the Labour Court nor could be referred under the Industrial Disputes Act.' Whether a certain establishment was transferred to another establishment along with workmen or without that could not be the scope of adjudication by the references in dispute.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respordent M/s Printers Home Private Ltd, has plated reliacce on Hochtief Gammon v. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa, A. I. R. 1964 S. C. 1746', to contend that and Industrial Tribunal or Labror Court bad inherent and implied powers to implead necessary and proper parties for adjudication of the industrial dispute.
8. A close scrutiny of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the said respondent only further supports the submission of the petitioners as it had been categorically held in para 7 of the judgment that it is not open to the Tribunal to travel materially beyond the terms of reference, for it is well settled that the terms of reference determine the scope of its power and jurisdiction from case to case."
9. Still in order to ascertain the real position, I have myself gone through the statements of witnesses made before the learned Labour Court as a result whereof I find, that it had been categorically denied by the workmen that they ever worked for M/s Indo Graphic Art Machinery Co. (P) Ltd. This fact, therefore, further clinches the issue that services of the petitioners had been illegally terminated by M/s Printers House Private Ltd. and for that matter the original award of the Labour Court made on 19th/2lst May, 1988, was in accordance with law and did not require any review.
10. Consequently, I allow both the writ petitions with costs and by issuing a writ of certiorari quash the impugned order of review dated 25th May, 1989, passed by the Labour Court The petitioners shall also be entitled to the costs of the writ petitions which are quantified at Rs. 1,000/- in each case.