9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Competence of the reference made by the Delhi Administration to the Labour Court. 2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the award of the Labour Court. 3. Interpretation of the term "industrial dispute" in the context of the case. 4. Application of the decision in Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. v. The Industrial Tribunal of Gujarat to the present case. 5. Proper exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226. Analysis: The case involved the termination of a probationary Bus Conductor's services by the Delhi Transport Corporation, leading to a dispute referred to the Labour Court by the Delhi Administration. The Labour Court found the termination to be illegal and mala fide, ordering reinstatement with full back wages. The management challenged this award in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that no industrial dispute existed as the workman had not raised any demand. The High Court, delving into unnecessary discussions, quashed the Labour Court's award based on a technicality regarding the existence of an industrial dispute. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in substituting its judgment for that of the Labour Court on jurisdictional facts. The Court emphasized that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 should be exercised cautiously and not as an appellate authority over specialized Tribunals. The presence of a conciliation proceeding and a report to the Government justified the existence of an industrial dispute, warranting the Labour Court's jurisdiction in the matter. Regarding the application of Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. v. The Industrial Tribunal of Gujarat, the Supreme Court clarified that the decision in that case was specific to the subject matter of dispute and did not support the respondents' argument in the present case. The Court further criticized the High Court for interfering with the Labour Court's award on a technicality, emphasizing that Article 226 should serve the interests of justice. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment, and reinstated the award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court. The judgment underscored the importance of respecting the jurisdiction of specialized Tribunals and exercising judicial review under Article 226 judiciously to uphold justice.
|
