On this occasion with the companysent of the rival parties, the Special Appeal came to be disposed of, by recording the following observations Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and companysidering the case of both the parties to the extent that the reference case should be decided by the Industrial Tribunal, we transfer the reference case from the Labour Court II, Ghaziabad to the companycerned Industrial Tribunal for its decision and direct the proceedings of the reference case shall companymence from the stage it was before the Labour Court, as we find from the records that the written statement and other paraphernalia have already been companypleted before the Labour Court.
In companypliance of the directions issued by the High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.16666 of 1999 , the State Government by its order dated 11.02.2003, re transferred the dispute from the Industrial Tribunal, Meerut, to the Labour Court, Ghaziabad.
Accordingly, vide its order dated 07.08.2006, the Industrial Tribunal directed the respondents workmen to adopt the procedure laid down in Rule 40 1 i c of the Industrial Disputes Rules, for finalising their representation before the Industrial Tribunal.
Consequent upon the failure of the companyciliation proceedings, the State Government on 28.05.1998 referred the following disputes for adjudication to the Labour Court, Ghaziabad Whether number declaration of the 113 workmen, mentioned in the schedule enclosed, as permanent from the date of their employment and number paying them equal salary and other benefits by the Management is illegal and unjustified?
The instant order passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 07.08.2006 came to be assailed by one of the respondents workmen by filing Writ Petition No.58121 of 2006.
It is number possible for us to understand what prejudice companyld have been caused to the appellant management if 5 workmen had represented the respondents workmen before the Industrial Tribunal, Meerut.
While the services of Hari Niwas, one of the respondents workmen, were terminated in the year 2000, the services of all the remaining workmen were terminated in the year 2005.
Liberty was however granted to the appellant management, to apply for recall of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
At the instant juncture, the respondents workmen made a representation to the State Government requiring it to transfer the matter for adjudication from the Labour Court, Ghaziabad to the Industrial Tribunal, Meerut.
The instant order was sought to be assailed by the Union representing the respondents workmen, through Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.13986 of 2003, before the High Court.
The order passed by the High Court on 30.04.2007 is the subject matter of challenge at the hands of the appellant management through the instant civil appeals.
The above writ petition came to be dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 02.04.2003.
The State Government was accordingly directed to pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law, within a period of six months.
It is in the aforesaid circumstances, that the appellant management filed a recall application, before the learned Single Judge.
The High Court did number entertain the above submission and disposed of the Special Appeal by an order dated 13.08.2003.
Eventually, by an order dated 28.10.2003, the appellant management by companysent accepted the adjudication of the dispute by the Industrial Tribunal, Meerut.
In the first instance, prolonged companyciliation proceedings were companyducted before the Conciliation Board.
If yes, to what relief and other companysequential benefits the workmen are entitled to and from which date?
Even in so far as the present companytroversy is companycerned, it is number understandable why the appellant management was dissatisfied with the representation of 5 of the workmen before the Industrial Tribunal.
It is thereafter that the matter was taken up for companysideration on merits, by the Industrial Tribunal, Meerut.
