JUDGMENT R. K. Mahajan, J.
1. This writ petition involves a short question whether a joint reference with respect to termination/retrenchment of several employees can be subject-matter of adjudication by the Labour Court when the employees are working in different branches though their employer is one and the same. The reference in question as referred in Annexure-C.A. 1 is as under :
"Whether the action of the Management of Allahabad Bank in terminating the services of S/Sri Swami Din, Jeevan Chander, Udai Kumar. Chander Shekhar Dwivedi, Ram Manohar, Shahu Ram, Shankar Lal, Namdeo, Devldin, Bala Prasad, Surendra Kumar, Guiab Chander, Hari Kishan, Kalpanath Ram, Ram Lakhan, Harish Chandra Yadav, Narendra Narain Mishra, Sunder Lal, Ram Naresh, Daya Ram, Ramayan Rai, Ram Shanker Ram, Htaph Khan, Ram Pati Ram, Devanand Ram, Khem Chand, Nand Kishore, Hari Charan, Rajendra Pratap Mishra from the services of the Bank and not considering them for further employment while recruiting fresh hands under Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act is justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned are entitled to?"
2. The Labour Court vide its order dated 1.9.88 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) negatived the plea of objectors regarding maintainability of the joint reference before it and rejected the objection holding that the Joint reference is maintainable. The Labour Court was of the view that the position would have been different if some of the workmen had claimed to have worked in different cadre and the management in respect of some of them had been different. It Is this order of Labour Court dated 1.9.1988 which has been made subject-matter of the writ petition before this Court.
3. This Court vide its order dated 4.10.1988 stayed operation of aforesaid order dated 1.9.88 of Labour Court. The stay vacation application came up for orders before me. Since the affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. learned counsel for both sides suggested to which I agreed to dispose of the writ petition itself on merits. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on merits of the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the joint reference is not maintainable as it will prejudice the case of the Management because the workmen relate to different branches of the Bank situated at different districts of Uttar Pradesh such as Banda, Kanpur, Gonda etc. and therefore, the Management will have to summon records from different branches situated in different corners of the State. Learned counsel further submitted that it is a case of misjoinder of cause of action as one Swami Ram was dismissed on 17.9.82 on account of misconduct, he raised industrial dispute, conciliation proceedings failed but the authority concerned, i.e., Central Government tagged with it cases of other 28 workers.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the joint reference is fully maintainable as infact it is a case of retrenchment of the respondents and they have not been given benefit of Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act and this is the subject-matter of reference.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a learned single Judge decision rendered in Allahabad Bank v. Central Government and others, Civil Misc, Writ Petition No. 6507 of 1988, decided on 27.4.1995 and also on a ruling of Apex Court in Mool Chand Yadav and another v. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., Rampur and others, AWC 1983 All 121. The case of Mool Chand (supra), is cited for the proposition that during pendency of the appeal, the operation of an order having serious civil consequences must be suspended more so when the appeal is admitted. But this ruling is of no help to the present petitioners as the writ petition itself is being disposed of finally.
7. As regards the learned single Judge decision in Allahabad Bank's case (supra), the ratio laid down therein Is that a joint reference is not maintainable in law considering the history of amendment of the Industrial Disputes Act and insertion of Section 2A in the 1947 Act. The respondents have also placed reliance on another learned single Judge decision rendered in Allahabad Bank. Bando. v. Central Government and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19442 of 1988. decided on 25.2.1994 holding that the joint reference by the Central Government in respect of 28 workmen is valid.
8. Further, the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents in the counter-affidavit is that the writ petition is not bona fide and has been filed only to delay the adjudication of the case and to harass the workmen who are out of job for the last about 10 years and are facing starvation along with their family members.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the Joint reference is valid under, the facts and circumstances of the present case. The violation of Section 25H of Industrial Disputes Act is alleged. Seniors are alleged to have been retrenched retaining Juniors. Violation of Shastri Award is also alleged, whereas the Banking Industry was party to it. The allegation has also been made regarding violation of the policy. In nutshell the plea of workmen is that the termination/retrenchment is not in consonance with the industrial jurisprudence and the Industrial Disputes Act, as welt as the Shastri Award.
10. It is a basic principle of Industrial Law that the industrial disputes be resolved by collective bargaining so that industrial peace may be maintained in the industry. By U. P. Act No. 34 of 1978, the provisions of Section 2A have been inserted in Section 2 of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said provisions of Section 2A are being quoted with advantage :
"2A. Dismissal etc. of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute.--Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with or arising out of such discharge, dismissal retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute."
Thus, the Legislature in its wisdom has given a right to individual workman against his discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination by bringing it within the meaning of 'industrial dispute' under the Industrial Disputes Act. The 'industrial dispute' as mentioned in Section 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 means any dispute or difference between employers and employee, or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person. Previously individual workman had no right to raise an industrial dispute except through Union before a competent authority. i.e., Conciliation Officer for conciliation purposes and if the conciliation fails then reference to a Labour Court. So. in other words he had no right to get his matter adjudicated except through the Union.
11. Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act is wide enough to refer any industrial dispute which exists or is apprehended, to the Labour Court. Industrial dispute in my view can be between employer and group of employees working under the same establishment in different branches as the branches have to adopt the policy issued by the Head Office. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of Allahabad Bank that the Joint Reference should not have been made. It is nothing but a device to prolong the proceedings which may break the nerves of poor labourers so that their grievances may not be redressed timely. In D. P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1984 SC 153, the Apex Court had deprecated the practice of preliminary issues in the matters of labour disputes.
12. This practice has also been criticised by a Division Bench of this Court to which I was a party in M/s. H. R. Sugar Factory, Nekpur, Borettly v. State of U. P. and others. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1189 of 1979, decided on 19.12.1996, with the observations that the Industrial Disputes Act is meant to resolve the disputes expeditiously so that there may remain peace in the factory and there may be regular and maximum production in it. If a lengthy procedure is adopted by the Labour Court and the matter is unnecessarily prolonged would it not be travesty of justice and would it not be mockery of Justice by way of depriving a genuine workman to get Justice quickly?
13. In the instant case, the Labour Court has rightly rejected the objections of employer regarding maintainability of the joint reference not treating it a preliminary issue and has rightly held the joint reference maintainable. It is fully in consonance with the new provisions of Order XIV. Rule 1. C.P.C. as well as the principle that the piecemeal trials should be avoided. The preliminary issue drags the litigation for years together. For instance in case, on preliminary issue matter goes up to the Apex Court and after lapse of 20 or 30 years Apex Court holds the joint reference valid the Labour Court would revert back again to square one position and will have to restart the case and by that time some may not remain in existence in the world and some may not have retained estemina to contest.
14. In the instant case, it appears that the employer Allahabad Bank did not raise objections before the Central Government and straightaway they have corne before the Labour Court raising objections by means of an application. The Central Government in its wisdom, after getting the conciliation report, has referred the matter before the Labour Court by means of Joint reference. The employer Allahabad Bank will have a right to lead evidence on every aspect of the case and the Labour Court will deal with the merits of the case of each workman by following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court as well as the provisions of law.
15. In view of the discussions made above. 1 am of the considered view that this writ petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order of costs.