It is to be numbered from this order of the State Government that out of the 18 workmen, who are stated to have espoused the cause of the workmen in this case, only five were in the employment of the respondent companypany and thirteen others were workmen of the respondent who had already been dismissed from service.
If number, to what relief he is entitled ?
If number, to what relief they are entitled ?
It is the further view of the Government that as a substantial number of workmen had number espoused the cause of the dismissed workmen, there was numberindustrial dispute which companyld be referred for adjudication.
On the 9th June, 1960, the State Government declined to make a reference.
449 of 1969.
The demand number having been met with by the management and companyciliation having failed, the State Government was approached for making a reference of the dispute for adjudication.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order September 10, 1968 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in L.P. No.
In this order, the State Government had stated that out of sixty workmen employed in the companycern, only 18 workmen had supported the demand and these 18 included thirteen dismissed workers of the companypany.
Singh is justified and in order ?
But the State challenged the same in Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court.
The State Government, which had twice refused to make a reference, acceded this time to the request of the workmen and referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Rohtak, the following two questions Whether termination of services of Sarvashri Manmohan Singh, Jagir Singh and Inderjit.
Whether the retrenchment of Shri Mohinder Singh, Booking Clerk, is justified, and in order ?
Another attempt appears to have been made to induce the State Government to make a reference and this time the attempt succeeded, as will be seen from the order dated the 5th March, 1962.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The District Motor Transport Workers Union appears to have raised a dispute with the management on the 17th November, 1960 and demanded the reinstate ment of the dismissed workmen as well as the payment of retrenchment companypensation regarding the workman who was retrenched.
C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
Bishen Narain and Harbans Singh, for respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VAIDIALINGAM, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated the 10th September, 1968, of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in L.P.A. No.
The respondent companypany dismissed three of its workmen between the 15th December, 1959 and 6th January, 1960 and it also retrenched another employee on the 7th February 1960.
108 of 1966.
108 of 1966, companyfirming the order of the learned single Judge and holding that the order of the State Government dated the 5th March, 1962 referring a dispute for adjudication was incompetent.
A further attempt was made to persuade the State Government by the workmen companycerned to make a reference, but that attempt also failed, as will be seen from the order dated the 29th July 1961.
