Subsequently, the Government issued an Order by way of companyrigendum on the 19th July, 1961, substituting Ranchi for Patna in the original order of reference dated 14th June, 1961.
The Labour Court held that the reference to it was companypetent and it had jurisdiction to deal with it, even though, by the original order of reference, the Government had purported to refer the dispute to the Labour Court, Patna.
On that date, the management again prayed for an adjournment on the ground that their local Manager, Sri Basant Jha, had been lying ill for some time past and it was number possible for the management to prosecute their case with diligence.
The case before the Labour Court was also companytested on various other grounds, but we need only mention those grounds which have been urged before us in this appeal.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 23, 1966 of the Patna High Court in Misc.
While the Labour Court was dealing with the reference, adjournments were sought on behalf of the appellant, M s. Dabur Dr. S. K. Burman Private Ltd. After decision of some preliminary points by the order dated 18th August, 1962, the case was fixed for hearing on 19th November, 1962.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
If number, whether they are entitled to reinstatement and or any other relief?
Judicial Case No.
The Labour Court rejected this application and, thereupon, proceeded to hear the reference ex parte.
K. Ramamurthi, Shymala Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for the respondents.
The effect of this companyrigendum was that the reference of the dispute, instead of being made to the Labour Court, Patna, came before the Labour Court, Ranchi.
In the proceedings before that Court, the principal objections that was raised was that the Government, having once made a reference to the Labour Court, Patna, was number companypetent to cancel or withdraw that reference and companyld number make a companypetent reference of the same industrial dispute to the Labour Court, Ranchi, so that the latter Court had numberjurisdiction to deal with the reference.
Whether the above mentioned workmen are entitled to be made permanent?
2568 of 1966.
118 of 1963.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava, J. The Government of Bihar, by an Order dated 14th June, 1961, referred an industrial dispute under section 10 1 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 14 of 1947 to the Labour Court, Patna, wherein the following two issues were referred Whether the discharge of the following forty workmen was proper?
R. Gokhale and Sukumar Ghose, for the appellant.
On the first issue referred, the Court recorded the finding that the 40 workmen, who had been discharged, were number casual workers and that their discharge by the employers on the basis that they were casual workers was number proper.
It was further held that the discharge was mala fide inasmuch as the purpose of the discharge was to avoid the liability of treating these workmen as permanent employees by preventing them from companypleting 240 days of work in a year.
Against this award, the appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Patna requesting that Court to quash the award.
There was the further finding that the workmen were all discharged from service as they had demanded increase in rates of wages and had also claimed that Sundays should be made paid holidays.
