# Chemical Workers Union v. Labour Court at Ghaziabad and another

- **Citation:** (2006) 1 ILRA 122
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-01-09
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.4250 of 1999
- **Bench:** Shishir Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chemical-workers-union-v-labour-court-at-ghaziabad-and-another-40647
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India-Article-226-Power
of labor court-confined with dispute as
referred
by
the
government
under
section 4-K of Industrial dispute Act.

Held: Para 9

Admittedly from the reference it is clear
that there was no dispute between the
petitioners and the respondents, which
was referred by the State Government
and in view of the Apex Court judgment.
It is well settled that the Labour Court
has to act according to the reference and
cannot go beyond it. In such a way I am
of opinion that the finding recorded by
the Labour Court is correct and it needs
no interference by this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Case law discussed:
2005 SCC (L&S) 372
AIR 1959-1111

## Text

122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.4250 of 1999

Chemical Workers Union
...Petitioner
Versus
Labour Court at Ghaziabad and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.P. Agrawal
Km. Suman Sirohi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Satish Chaturvedi
S.C.

Constitution of India-Article-226-Power
of labor court-confined with dispute as
referred
by
the
government
under
section 4-K of Industrial dispute Act.

Held: Para 9

Admittedly from the reference it is clear
that there was no dispute between the
petitioners and the respondents, which
was referred by the State Government
and in view of the Apex Court judgment.
It is well settled that the Labour Court
has to act according to the reference and
cannot go beyond it. In such a way I am
of opinion that the finding recorded by
the Labour Court is correct and it needs
no interference by this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Case law discussed:
2005 SCC (L&S) 372
AIR 1959-1111

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shishir Kumar, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
for
setting
aside
the
award
dated
22.12.1995 published on 27.9.1997 in
Adjudication Case No.253 of 1987 and
further prayer is for commanding the
Labour Court to treat the termination of
the services of the 12 workmen w.e.f.
12.3.1987 and to rehear the matter of
dispute and decide the same on the basis
of the dismissal having taken place on
12.3.1987. The writ petition has been
filed on behalf of one Sri Virendra Garg,
Member, Executive Committee of the
Chemical Works Union, 231, Lal Jhanda
Bhavan, Ambedkar Road, Ghaziabad
against the award dated 22.12.1995 by
which the claim of the workmen has not
been accepted by the Labour Court.

2. The facts arising out of the writ
petition are that the workmen who are
working under respondent no.2, there was
some dispute and they went on strike and
then they have stated that they wanted to
join from 12.11.1987 but the employer
has not permitted them to join the duties
as such the dispute arose. The matter was
referred to the State Government and the
State Government has referred the dispute
to the Labour Court for adjudication. The
reference is being reproduced below:

sD;k lsok;kstdksa Onkjk layXu ifjsf'kIV esa mfYyf[kr
vius 12 Jfesdksa dks fnukad 12-3-87 ls dk;Z ls IkzFkd
ofpr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk vFkok oW/kkfusd gS ;fn ugha
rks lEcf?kr Jfed D;k ykHk ikus dk vf/ksdkjh gS rFkk
vU; fdu fooj.kksa lfgr\

3. The Labour Court has rejected the
claim of the petitioner only on the ground
that the date which has been mentioned
by the petitioner as 12.3.1987, there was
no
termination
order
and
as
the
respondent has come with a case that the
services of these workmen have been
terminated on 9.4.1987 and there is no
reference regarding consideration of the
1 All] Chhama Shankar PandeyV. D.I.O.S., Kanpur Nagar and others
123
order dated 9.4.1987, therefore, the
Labour Court will not adjudicate the
matter beyond the reference and had
dismissed the claim of the petitioner.

4. Sri K.P. Agarwal, learned Senior
Advocate has submitted that from the
reference it is clear that the petitioner
wanted to join on 12.3.1987 but as the
same has not been permitted by the
employer, therefore, that date may be
taken into consideration regarding the
order of termination or cessation of work.
Admittedly the petitioners were not
permitted
by
the
employer
from
12.3.1987 to join, therefore, the Labour
Court
ought
to
have
taken
into
consideration that as the petitioners were
not permitted to work on the said date,
therefore, inspite of the fact that employer
came with the case that their services
have been terminated on 9.4.1987 and
there was no reference for consideration
of
the
order
of
termination
dated
9.4.1987, therefore the Labour Court has
got no jurisdiction to adjudicate the
dispute. Reliance has been placed upon
A.I.R. 1976 S.C. Page 1111 The State
Bank of India Vs. Shri N. Sundar Money
and has submitted that the Labour Court
ought to have considered the jurisdiction
vested in law by refusing to enter into the
merits of the case and holding that cause
of action has not arisen on 12.3.1987 is an
illegal view taken by the Labour Court.
The Labour Court did not take into
consideration that for the workmen it was
termination of their services when they
have been refused permission to enter into
the factory on 12.3.1987 when they had
called off the strike and wanted to resume
work. Inspite of the fact that if the order
of dismissal of the workmen even if it is
accepted, it had taken place on 9.4.1987
but as no departmental/domestic inquiry
has taken place, the order is bad and the
Labour Court ought to have taken into
consideration the order dated 9.4.1987. It
is well settled law by the Apex Court in
case of Phulbari Tea Estate Vs. Its
Workmen which was decided in 1959vide A.I.R. 1959 S.C. Page 1111 that
before punishing a workman, he must be
charge-sheeted and a domestic inquiry
should be held because 12 workmen has
been denied opportunity of being heard as
such the same was against the principles
of natural justice.

5. On the other hand, the counsel for
the respondent no.2 Sri Satish Chaturvedi
has submitted that after the strike the
petitioners workmen have not joined and
as they were involved in the strike, the
intimation regarding the charges and
order of suspension were sent individually
to the concerned workman and others by
registered post and also under insured
cover and a copy of that was affixed on
the main gate of the factory. The charge
sheet -cum-suspension order was also
published in the issue date 15.3.1987 in
the local Hindi Daily ''Hint' but no reply
was submitted inspite of the repeated
opportunity given to them. It has further
been
submitted
on
behalf
of
the
respondents that a specific averment was
made in the written statement filed before
the Labour Court that as the Managing
Director
and
another
director
was
involved as victim and witness in the
case, therefore, there was a bonafide
apprehension that it will not be possible to
hold a peaceful and domestic inquiry as
such it was decided not to hold any
domestic inquiry. The services of the
workmen were not terminated in order to
reference and they continued to be
unauthorized absent, therefore, it will be
presumed that they have all voluntarily
124 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
abandoned their jobs. It has further been
submitted on behalf of the respondents
that on the basis of the document and on
the basis of the evidence it was fully
proved that the workmen petitioner has
not joined the services after 12.3.1987
inspite of the end of the strike and
services of the petitioner were terminated
on 9.4.1987. No order was passed on
12.3.87; therefore, the Labour Court has
rightly refused to go beyond the reference
of the State Government. It has also been
brought to the notice of the Court that
there was some quarrel and order of
suspension
of
the
workmen
were
withdrawn by the employer on 27.1.86
but the strike was continued and there was
no compromise. The workmen themselves
have finished the strike on 12.3.1987. The
Labour Court has recorded a finding to
this effect that inspite of the end of the
strike as stated by the workmen, they have
not
turned
up
for
work
in
the
organization. The finding of fact has been
recorded by the Labour Court that the
workmen have failed to prove that they
wanted to work from 12.3.87 but
respondent no.2 has not permitted them to
enter into the premises. The notices which
were sent to the workmen regarding
termination of their services were filed
before the Labour Court and the finding
to this effect has been recorded that there
is no reason to disbelieve the documents
which have been submitted by respondent
no.2 and the services of the workmen
have been terminated by the employer
vide its order dated 17.4.1987. The
Labour Court has also recorded a finding
of fact that the services have been
terminated by a written order and no order
was passed on 12.3.1987 and the Labour
Court cannot go beyond the reference
made by the State Government, therefore,
there cannot be any interference.

6. From the evidence it is also clear
that the workmen gave a notice on
11.3.87. The same was given by the
Union but there is no signature of the
workman and no information to this effect
that respondent no.2 has not permitted to
work these workmen has been given to
the Labour Court Commissioner. It has
also come in the statement that no
complaint to the City Magistrate has been
made as the petitioners have failed to
prove that they tried to join on 12.3.87.
On the other hand, a finding to this effect
has been recorded by the Labour Court
that respondent no.2 has sent a registered
notice on 9.9.87 and the same has been
proved by producing the receipts and by
oral evidence and as such, has recorded a
finding that there was no dispute on
12.3.1987, therefore, the reference is bad.

7. I have heard the learned counsel
for
the
petitioner
and
Sri
Satish
Chaturvedi
who
appears
for
the
respondents and have perused the record.
From the record it is clear that the
reference was to the effect that whether
the services of the workmen have been
dispensed with from 12.3.1987 and what
is the effect? The Labour Court has
recorded a finding to this effect that as the
reference was regarding consideration of
retrenchment and cessation of work from
12.3.1987 and from the record it has been
proved that the services of the petitioners
were terminated and there was no
reference by the State Government
regarding the order dated 9.4.1987, the
Court has no jurisdiction to go beyond the
reference made by the State Government,
as such has dismissed the claim on the
ground that there was no dispute on
12.3.1987. In the case reported in 2005
1 All] Chemical Workers Union V. Labour Court at Ghaziabad and another
125
SCC ( L & S) 154, Mahendra L. Jain Vs.
Indore Development Authority, the Apex
Court has clearly held that the Labour
Court can only decide the dispute referred
to it. The Labour Court has got no
jurisdiction to go beyond it.

8. In 2005 S.C.C. (L & S) Page 372,
Management
of
Madurantakam
Corporation Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. S.
Vishwanathan the Apex Court has held
regarding the scope of interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and has held that the Labour Court or
Industrial Court is final Court of fact
unless and until it is proved that it is
illegal apparent on the face of record, the
Court should not interfere in the finding
of fact recorded by the Labour Court.

9. Admittedly from the reference it
is clear that there was no dispute between
the petitioners and the respondents, which
was referred by the State Government and
in view of the Apex Court judgment. It is
well settled that the Labour Court has to
act according to the reference and cannot
go beyond it. In such a way I am of
opinion that the finding recorded by the
Labour Court is correct and it needs no
interference by this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.

10. The writ petition is devoid of
merit and is hereby dismissed. No order
as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.09.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41591 of 2002

Committee of Management, Beni Singh
Vaidic Vidyawati Inter College Baluganj,
Agra and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri Vishnu Shankar Gupta
Sri Vinod Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri O.P. Sharma
Sri G.K. Singh
Sri V.K. Singh
S.C.

U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior
High Schools) Recruitment and condition
of service of teachers, 1978-Rule IVread with National council of Teachers
Education Act 1993-S 14-G.O. Dated
31.1.1998
providing
compassionate
appointment on the post of Asstt.
Teacher in junior high school-to such
dependent who does not possess even
minimum qualification held ultra vireseven rules of dying in harness rules 1974
refers the relation in age and procedure
for appointment but no relaxation given
with minimum qualification.

Held: Para 17

Learned counsel for respondent no. 6 has
relied
upon
Rule
8
of
the
U.P.
Appointments
of
Dependants
of
Government Servant Dying in Harness
Rules 1974. A perusal of the Rule 8
Shows, it refers to age and the procedure