On merits, the Labour Court gave the following finding I, therefore, hold that the termination order in respect of this workman is illegal and mala fide and that amounts to companyourable exercise of power.
Delving into the evidence as if it was an appellate Court, and reappreciating the evidence, the High Court thought that one of the documents upon which the Labour Court had relied was a suspicious document and the High Court went on to find that numberdemand had been raised and there was numberIndustrial Dispute which companyld be properly referred by the Government for adjudication.
The reference was accordingly claimed to be incompetent.
On those findings a learned single judge of the High Court quashed the Award of the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 18th January, 1980 of the Delhi High Court in P.A. No.
In launching into a discussion on these questions needlessly, the High Court appeared to forget the basic fact that the Labour Court had given two categoric findings i that the Union had raised a demand with the management and that the termination of the services of the workman was a mala fide and companyourable exercise of power.
Consequently, the management was directed to reinstate the workman with effect from 8th September, 1967 with the full back wages and benefits.
The Union on behalf of the workman and the management appeared before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court.
The management invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi under Art.
226 of the Constitution questioning the award of the Labour Court.
The decision of the learned single judge was affirmed by a Division Bench.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Labour Court overruled the companytention, holding as a fact that the Union had raised a valid demand with the management.
N. Vohra, Anil Kumar Gupta and Miss Kailash Mehta for the Appellant.
6346 of 1983.
The Order of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Special leave granted.
On behalf of the management, a companytention was raised that the workman had number raised any demand with the management and that there was therefore, numberindustrial dispute.
On the failure of companyciliation proceedings, the Conciliation Officer, Delhi submitted his report to the Delhi Administration under s. 12 5 of the Industrial Disputes Act, whereupon the Delhi Administration referred the following dispute to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Delhi for adjudication Whether the termination of service, of Shri Sadhu Ram, companyductor is illegal and unjustified, and if so what directions are necessary in this respect.
N. Bhandari and Arunesewar Gupta for the Respondent.
Sadhu Ram was a probationer Bus Conductor whose services were terminated on 7th September, 1967 by the respondent, the Delhi Transport Corporation.
62 of 1973.
