Punjab-Haryana High Court
The President Gobind Pura Co-Operative ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 3 August, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1992)102PLR600
JUDGMENT A.L. Bahri, J.
1. Govindpura Co-operative Agriculture Service Society (hereunder called "the Management") challenged in this writ petition award of the Labour Court dated October 7, 1991, Annexure P/l, inter alia on the ground that Kishan Kumar workman had not completed 240 days in twelve months prior to his termination of services, which order was made on June 26,. 1991, and thus the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act were not at all attracted. Another plea taken in the writ petition is that in view of Section 82 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the reference under the Industrial Disputes Act.
2. On notice of motion having been issued, the writ petition has been contested by the workman Krishan Kumar by filing reply, inter alia, asserting that order of termination of services was passed by way of punishment and it is a case of victimization. Earlier his services were terminated and he was reinstated but again his services were terminated on August 16, 1982. Copy of the award of Labour Court dated October 12, 1984, was filed that on earlier occasion also he had withdrawn reference when his services were terminated on June 29, 1981, as he had been promised reinstatement.
3. Contention of Shri R. S. Amol, Advocate for the petitioner, that Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be accepted. The present is a case where services of the workman were terminated. Such an order made by the Management or the employer does not fall in either of the clauses (a) to (d) of Sub section (1) of Section 82 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act. Furthermore it cannot be treated as an order or decision made under the provisions of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act which could not be challenged in any Court as required under Section 82 (3) of the Act. It is entirely different that the workman could also challenge the order terminating his services under the provisions of the Act, however, he chose to approach the Labour Court. In such circumstances, jurisdiction of the Labour. Court to decide the matter is not ousted.
4. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the order terminating services of the workman was passed by way of punishment and no enquiry was conducted. This has not been successfully refuted in the writ petition. Labour Court further held that even before it, the ground of non-confidence in the workman was not established. We find no ground to intefere with the award of the Labour Court. This writ petition is dismissed with costs, which are quantified as Rs. 1,000/-