1968 (2) TMI 123 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the reference is a "proceeding" under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966?
2. Whether the Labour Court, Jullundur, or Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, is the "corresponding Court, Tribunal, Authority or Officer" under the Act?
3. Whether the reference stands transferred under Section 93 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966?

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The case involves a reference forwarded to the High Court by the Presiding Officer, Labor Court, Jullundur, questioning if the reference qualifies as a "proceeding" under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. The dispute arose between the workers and the management of a company in Amritsar regarding Dearness Allowance. The Industrial Disputes Act empowered the appropriate Government to refer such disputes to a Labor Court or Tribunal for adjudication. The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, came into force on 1st November, 1966, leading to the transfer of the case from Labor Court, Rohtak, to Labor Court, Jullundur. The management argued that Section 93 was not applicable as the reference was not a "proceeding." However, the court held that industrial disputes fall under the definition of a "proceeding" and are subject to transfer under Section 93.

Issue 2:
The second issue pertains to determining whether the Labor Court, Jullundur, or the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, qualifies as the "corresponding Court, Tribunal, Authority or Officer" under Section 93 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. The management contended that the Labor Court in Jullundur could not be considered corresponding to the Labor Court in Rohtak due to concurrent jurisdiction. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the Labor Court in Jullundur is indeed the corresponding court to Rohtak as per the Industrial Disputes Act, which extends to Punjab, Haryana, and other states.

Issue 3:
The final issue revolves around whether the reference stands transferred to the Labor Court, Jullundur, under Section 93 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. The management claimed that the reference had lapsed due to the reorganisation of the state and the formation of new governments. They argued that the provisions of Section 93 were not applicable to industrial disputes. However, the court disagreed, emphasizing that Section 93 covers pending proceedings before Labor Courts or Industrial Tribunals, ensuring automatic transfers in cases of reorganisation.

In conclusion, the court ruled that the industrial dispute was validly referred under Section 93 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, to the Labor Court, Jullundur, granting jurisdiction to proceed with the case.