As aforesaid, the respondent Company challenged the validity of such award of the Labour Court before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The appellant Shri S.K. Maini was working as the Shop Manager Incharge of the respondent Company M s Carona Sahu Company Limited.
On an allegation of misconduct against the appellant, a domestic enquiry was caused by the respondent Company and by order dated March 12, 1981 the service of the appellant was terminated.
By the aforesaid judgment, the writ petition moved by the respondent M s Carona Sahu Company Limited was allowed and the award of the Labour Court, Jalandhar dated April 21, 1986 in Reference No.
The said Letters Patent Appeal was preferred against the judgment dated August 11, 1992 passed by the Single Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.
Accordingly, the reference was number maintainable and Shri Maini was number entitled to get any relief from the Labour Court.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N. RAY, J. Leave granted.
Hence, he companyld number be held to be a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act.
On September 28, 1981, Government of Punjab referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Jalandhar Whether the termination of service of Shri S.K. Maini is justified and in order?
Before the Labour Court a preliminary objection was raised by the respondent Company as to the maintainability of the said reference by companytending that Shri S.K. Maini was number a workman within the definition of Section 2 s of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 because being a Shop Manager In charge of the shop, he had been discharging mainly managerial and administrative functions and had been supervising the works of other employees subordinate to him for running the said shop and even if he was a Supervisor at the relevant time, Shri S.K. Maini was drawing a salary of more than Rs 500 per month.
A special leave petition before this Court was filed by the appellant petitioner against the order of dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal and leave has been granted to such leave petition.
4410 of 1986.
The appellant thereafter preferred the Letters Patent Appeal against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge but the said appeal was dismissed in limine.
The said Iqbal Singh, an Advocate, used to be engaged to companytest the claims of the workmen companycerned of the companypany in various legal proceedings.
For the above reasons, the writ petition was allowed by the learned Judge and the award of the Labour Court dated September 21, 1981 was set aside.
389 of 1981 directing the respondent Company to reinstate the appellant Shri S.K. Maini with full back wages was set aside by the High Court.
The Labour Court also held that the Enquiring Officer Shri Iqbal Singh was the Standing Counsel of the respondent Company for disciplinary action to be taken against the employees of the Company.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated August 27, 1992 passed by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing in limine Letters Patent Appeal No.
If number, to what relief and amount of companypensation is he entitled?
The Labour Court also came to the finding that the domestic enquiry was number properly companyducted against him and reasonable opportunity to defend in the domestic enquiry was number given to Shri Maini by number allowing Shri Maini to be represented by a lawyer.
935 of 1992.
