Allahabad High Court
M/S Gail (India) Limited vs State Of U.P. And Others on 2 April, 2010
Author: Bala Krishna Narayana
Bench: Bala Krishna Narayana
Court No. - 28 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17503 of 2009 Petitioner :- M/S Gail (India) Limited Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Prakash Padia,Dr. R.G. Padia Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Smt. Usha Srivastava,V.K. Srivastava Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
List has been revised.
Heard Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2. None appears for the respondent no. 3.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 8.9.2008 passed by the respondent no. 2, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (I) Kanpur in adjudication case no. 349 of 2005 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) by which the application nos. 13-D and 17-D filed by the petitioner raising preliminary objection that the State Government had no power under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to make a reference before the Labour Court on behalf of the petitioner. It is contended that the application filed by the petitioner before the respondent no. 2 to the effect that the proceeding initiated with reference to the notice dated 3.7.1998 in exercise of power under Section 4 K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was incompetent, for the reason the Gas Authority of India Limited being a Central Government owned company was outside the scope of U.P Industrial Disputes Act and any adjudication qua the dispute of a workman in respect of the petitioner company should be referred only under an order of the Central Government with reference to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. He further submitted that by the impugned order, the respondent no. 2 rejected the petitioner's preliminary objection without referring to the various documents filed by the petitioner before him along with his application 17-D and erroneously referred to the notification dated 3.7.1998 while holding that the representation was being rejected, without considering the fact that the schedule attached to the notification did not include the name of Gas Authority of India Limited.
In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 3 it has been stated that the respondent no. 2 rightly rejected the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the petitioner by giving cogent reasons and the respondent no. 1 rightly held that under the notification dated 3.7.1998, the State Government was fully competent to make a reference to the Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal relating to employees of the petitioner.
After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the averments made in the writ petition, Counter and rejoinder affidavits as well as the impugned order, I find that by the notification dated 3.7.1998 copy whereof Annexure 12 to the writ petition the Central Government had authorized the State Government to make reference in exercise of powers under Section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of dispute qua the Government owned company, which have been specified in the schedule attached to the notification. In the schedule attached to the notification does not include the Gas Authority of India Limited. The contention raised by the petitioner that the reliance placed by the respondent no. 2 notification dated 3.7.1998 was totally misplaced has force. The respondent no. 2 decided the preliminary objection of the petitioner which relates to the inherent lack jurisdiction of the Labour Court to adjudicate upon the dispute in an extremely cursory manner. The matter requires fresh consideration by the respondent no. 2 after taking into account the entire material on record as well as after examining as to whether the Gas Authority of India Company is specified in the schedule attached to the notification dated 3.7.1998.
For the aforesaid reasons the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 8.9.2008 passed by the respondent no. 2 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) is quashed. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (I) Kanpur-respondent no. 2 is directed to reconsider and decide the petitioner's application 17-D in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order. Necessary exercise in this regard shall be completed by the respondent no. 2 within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order Order Date :- 2.4.2010 vks