In the writ petition filed, he challenged the transfer order as also the termination order issued by the appellant herein.
During the pendency of the said representation, it was companytended before the Labour Commissioner by the appellant that the respondent number 1 was number a workman, and therefore, the Labour Commissioner had numberjurisdiction to adjudicate the representation under the provisions of P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and particularly in terms of Clause W of the Standing Orders.
The Parties were also placed at liberty to adduce necessary evidence in support of their respective companytentions before the Labour Commissioner.
A perusal of the earlier Writ Petition filed by the respondent number 1 numbered as Writ Petition No.Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Commissioner dated 14.05.2008, the respondent number 1 preferred a Writ Petition challenging the aforesaid companyclusions.
2 before the High Court and is the appellant herein.
8630 of 2008.
During the companyrse of his employment, he was transferred to Ram Kola Chini Mill but as he did number join the place where he was transferred in pursuance of the said order, his services were terminated.
Subsequently, the respondent number 1 filed a Special Appeal before the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which was registered as Special Appeal No.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the present Special Leave Petition was filed in this Court on which numberice was issued and an interim stay of the judgment and order of the High Court was passed.
Therefore, the Labour Commissioner held that the same companyld number be decided under Clause W of the Standing Orders, but instead should be determined by the Labour Court Industrial Tribunal.
The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment and order set aside the orders of the Labour Commissioner as also of the learned Single Judge and remitted the matter back to the Labour Commissioner to decide the nature of service of the respondent number 1 in accordance with law.
Notice of the writ petition having been served on the appellant herein, it took up a plea that the Respondent is number a workman.
Consequently, he companytended that his services companyld number have been terminated for number joining at a place of transfer.
1085 of 2008.
The said writ petition was registered as Writ Petition No.
A representation in terms of the said order was filed by the respondent number 1 herein.
The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the said writ petition by judgment and order dated 25.07.2008, holding that the representation of the respondent number 1 under Clause W of the Standing Orders was number maintainable and that the Labour Commissioner had rightly rejected the same.
The said writ petition was disposed of, leaving the respondent at liberty to move a representation before the Labour Commissioner, Kanpur, U.P. in terms of Clause W of the Standing Orders applicable.
What needs to be examined and looked into for deciding the aforesaid issue is the nature of job performed by the companycerned person, duties and responsibilities vested on him and other such relevant material.
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. Leave granted.
Being aggrieved by the order of termination of his services, he filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court companytending inter alia that the Standing Orders companytain numberprovision for the transfer of a workman from one sugar factory to another, and therefore, his transfer was against the law.
By filing the present petition the appellant herein has challenged the legality of the judgment and order dated 09.09.2008 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowing the Special Appeal filed by Respondent No.1 herein.
Respondent number 1 Jaswant Singh claims to be a workman of M s Gangeshwar Limited, Deoband, number known as Triveni Engineering Industries Limited, which was Respondent No.
The Labour Commission disposed of the petition, companycluding that the question at hand related to whether respondent number1 was a workman under the UP Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
