TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1977 (10) TMI 110
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the management (appellant) on August 24, 1965. The management has been persistently fighting him for the last twelve years having lost before the Labour Court, the single Judge of the Delhi High Court and lastly before the Division Bench of the High Court until the matter has landed in this Court on certificate. The facts may briefly be stated The workman was recruited as a labourer in the Store in 195 1. After about six months he was promoted as a Fitter-Helper and after about one and a half years he was promoted to the post of Motion Setter till 1964. On October 1, 1964, there was some reorganisation in the management's establishment ;and the post of Motion-Setter was abolished. Ordinarily, therefore, the workman would have been r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... kind to inform me without delay regarding the order served on me because I am a displaced person of East Pakistan and unable to stay more without any job. Hope to get an early reply at the address given above." The management did not reply to this letter and the workman; also did not report to the management. It appears from the letter written by the management to the workman on January 19, 1966 that- "your name has been automatically struck off the rolls under the provisions of the Standing Orders with effect from 24-8-65, for continued absence without any intimation". This is the only reply which the workman got from the management to his letter dated 16th August, 1965. It is surprising that the management did not im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n was taken questioning the Reference and the following issue was framed "Whether the dispute is an industrial dispute and the reference is bad" ? The Labour Court answered the issue Against the management holding as follows:-- "Under the newly added section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, any dispute regarding discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of services of even an individual workman amounts to an industrial dispute. I am therefore unable to accept the argument of the management that the dispute referred to this-Court cannot be treated as an industrial dispute because it relates to an individual workman". It is clear from the above that objection was taken by the management to the effect that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a substantial number of workmen or by a union. From the judgment of the learned single Judge it does not appear that this question of the vires of section 2A had been urged before him. It was only urged that section 2A 'was invalid since it offended Article 14 of the Constitution. Another objection was taken before the learned single Judge "that there could be no reference in respect of the industrial dispute under section 2A which was placed on the Statute Book after the termination of the employment of the workman in this case". The appellant has not pressed this point urged before the learned single Judge but has addressed us on Article 14 of the Constitution. Before the Division Bench the objection under Article 14 was re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the application of the workman. On the other hand, we find that the Reference was made by the Lieutenant Governor under section 10(1)(c) read with section 12(5) of the Act. There is nothing to show that even before the Conciliation Officer any objection was taken by the management that it was not an industrial dispute within the meaning of section 2(k) of the Act. Nothing prevented the management from raising such an issue even before the Conciliation Officer. We are, there- fore, clearly of opinion that this is not a case where litigation can be allowed to be dragged on by allowing the management to raise this question for the first time in this Court without any basis. We, therefore, decline to accede to the request that this is at all ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in respect of the present reference under section 10(1) (c) of the Act. The submission of the learned counsel is, therefore, devoid of substance. The question then arises whether the High Court was right in refusing to interfere with the. award under Article 226 of the Constitution. There is no manifest error of law on- the face of the award and none could be pointed out by the learned counsel. Neither is there any error of jurisdiction. The issue before the Labour Court was one of reinstatement of the workman and the Labour Court was entitled to go into the whole question which it did. We do not find any infirmity in the award. On the face of it, the order striking off the name of the workman from the rolls on August 24, 1965, is clearl....