The effect of this finding is that the reference companyld number have been made for adjudication and the same is accordingly invalid and hence the question of deciding the issue as in the reference or other issues does number arise as the industrial dispute under reference did number companye into existence in accordance with law before this reference.
This award dated 27.9.1972 proceeds the argument had to remain operative under sub s. 3 of s. 19 for a period of one year from the date on which it became enforceable under s. 17A i.e., a date one month after its publication.
It therefore directed his reinstatement with full back wages and companytinuity of serv ice.
By an order dated 2.5.1973, the Labour Court dismissed the preliminary objections.
He assails the findings of the High Court, thereon.
As regards H.S. Rawat, the Court found that he companyld number have remained unemployed throughout but was doing some work or the other for his living, may be with occasional spells.
The High Court thus rejected all the three companytentions, and, in the result, dismissed the writ petition in limine, with a speaking order.
Regarding point No.
Thereafter, these items were again referred for adjudication along with cer tain other matters to the Tribunal.
Shri G.B. Pai has reagitated all the three points before us.
By an amendment of their written statement in February, 1969, augmented by an application dated 17.8.1971 the Management raised a preliminary objection that since numberdemand numberice had been ,served on the Management, numberindus trial dispute had legally companye into existence, and as such the Reference was invalid and the Labour Court had numberjurisdiction to adjudicate it.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 7.11.1975 of the High Court at New Delhi in Civil Writ No.
Hence this appeal.
This award was made by the Labour Court on 1 5 1975.
By his order dated 2.5.1973, the Lt.
The Court therefore held that Rawat was entitled to reinstatement and companytinuity of service with 50 back wages till the award Came into operation and he got his reinstate ment.
The Management impugned this award by filing a writ petition under Art.
1123 of 1975 B. Pai, O.C. Mathur and D.N. Mishra, for the appellant.
After recording the evidence produced by the parties, the Court held on merits, that the termination of the services of 3 workmen was illegal and unjustified.
375 of 1976.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Emphasis has also been laid on the point that this award, dated 27.9.1972 was duly published by the Government under s. 17 1 and had assumed finality under sub s. 2 of the same section.
Governor, Delhi, again made a Refer ence to the Labour Court, under the Act for adjudication of the same matter relating to the termination of the services of the aforesaid workmen.
226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Delhi.
By an order, dated September 27, 1972, the Labour Court accepted the objection, holding that numberindustrial dispute came into existence before this reference as the workmen have failed to establish serving of demand on the management prior to this reference.
The Management raised, inter alia, a preliminary objec tion that a second Reference within one year of the first award, dated September 27, 1972, was number companypetent in view of what is companytained in sec.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. The principal question that arises in this appeal by special leave is Whether an order of the Labour Court to the effect, that since numberdemand of the workmen had been served on the employer, numberindustrial dispute had companye into existence in accordance with law, and as such the Reference was invalid and the Court had numberjurisdiction to adjudicate the matter referred to it by the Government, is an award for the purposes of Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short, called the Act ?
K. Ramamurthi, S.C. Jain and Madan Mohan, for respond ent No.
Governor of Delhi made a Refer ence under s. 10 read with s. 12 5 of the Act to the Labour Court, Delhi, to determine Whether the terminations of services of S Shri H.S. Rawat, Bidhi Chand and Ram Sarup Gupta were unlawful and unjustified, and if so, to what relief are these workmen entitled?
Cox Kings Agents Ltd. for short, the Management dismissed from service three of their workmen after a domes tic enquiry companyducted against them on certain charges.
In May 1967, the Lt.
Thereafter, the workmen on 25.10.1972, raised a dispute by serving demand numberices on the Management.
i Mr Pais argument is that the determination, dated 27.9.1972, also, was an award within the second part of the definition of the term in a. 2 b of the Act, inasmuch as it determined a question relating to an industrial dispute.
19 of the Act.
