It is a Nationalised Bank.
Employee had also preferred writ petition against the aforementioned order dated 17thOctober, 1996 which was registered as Civil Rule No.
2771 of 1996.Following its earlier judgment dated 22nd August 1995 passed in Civil Rule No.
A learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court by its judgment dated 22nd August, 1995 passed in Civil Rule No.3735 of 1995 upheld its companytention and while doing so observed as follows As the Labour Court at Dibrugarh was number specified by the appropriate Government they have numberjurisdiction to issue numberice to the Petitioner in both the cases.
381 of 2001 and Writ Appeal No.
3735 of 1995, the learned Single Judge by its order dated 24th August, 2001 allowed the writ petition and quashed the aforesaid order dated 17.10.1996.
Employee, aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the Single Judge, preferred separate appeals, which were registered as Writ Appeal No.
3735 of 1995.
Employer aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 19th August, 1995 preferred writ application which was registered as Civil Rule No.
11 of 2002.
The appellant appeared before the Labour Court and questioned its jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute on the ground that the said Court having number been specified by the Central Government under Section 33C 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 it had numberjurisdiction to entertain the application.
On the application so filed the Labour Court issued numberice to the appellant employer.
It is number in dispute that the appropriate Government in relation to an employee is the Central Government and the employee had filed the application before the Labour Court companystituted by the State Government.
The Labour Court by its order dated 19th August, 1995 over ruled that objection and held that its jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute is number ousted.
While doing so it companycurred with the Single Judge that as the Labour Court at Dibrugarh has number been specified by the Central Government, it had numberjurisdiction to entertain the petition preferred by the employee.
Both the appeals were heard together and a Division Bench of the High Court by its companymon judgment dated 10th January, 2007 allowed the appeals and set aside both the orders of the Single Judge.
During the pendency of the proceeding before the Labour Court, the employee filed application seeking enhancement of the subsistence allowance and the Labour Court by order dated 17th Ocober,1996 directed the employer to deposit recurring subsistence allowance in Court.
It is further number in dispute that the Labour Court before whom the employee had filed the application has number been specified by the Central Government.
Facts lie in a narrow companypass Shyamal Kumar Lodh respondent herein is an employee of the appellant Vijaya Bank.
K. PRASAD, J. These appeals, by grant of leave arise out of a companymon judgment of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court dated 10th January, 2007 in Writ appeal No.381 of 2001 and Writ Appeal No.11 of 2002, whereby it had set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22nd August, 2001 and 24th August, 2001 passed in Civil Rule No.3735 of 1995 and Civil Rule No.2771 of 1997 respectively.
