JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-workman has challenged the award dated 16th August, 1996 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I), Ghaziabad in Adjudication Case No. 511 of 1994. The following dispute was referred to the Labour Court:
^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed Jh ,y- ,l- 'kekZ] iq= Jh gj izlkn 'kekZ] LVsuksxzkQj dks fnukad 13-2-75 ls lsok ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr [email protected] oS/kkfud gS \ ;fn ugha] rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k ykHk {kfriwfrZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr \**
2. The Labour Court issued notice to the parties and allowed the parties to exchange their pleadings and lead evidence. On the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the Labour Court framed following seven additional issues apart from reference made to it:
(1) Whether the reference is illegal?
(2) Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter?
(3) Whether the transfer order dated 11.1.1975 is binding on the workman concerned, if so, whether the workman concerned is disobeying the transfer order?
(4) Whether the workman has voluntarily abandoned the employment?
(5) Whether the workman is entitled for relief of reinstatement?
(6) To what further relief the workman is entitled?
(7) Whether the workman has utilised four days leave and thereafter he has not presented himself for employment, if so, what is the effect of the absence on this reference?
3. By the impugned award the Labour Court decided the additional issues in the following manner:
Additional Issue No. 1.-Against the employer.
Additional Issue No. 2.-The Labour Court found that the reference is maintainable before it and it has jurisdiction to hear the same.
Additional Issue No. 3.-The Labour Court have recorded findings that the transfer order of the workman was not contrary to the law, therefore, the workman was not justified in not complying the same.
Additional Issue No. 4.-The Labour Court arrived at the conclusion that the workman has voluntarily abandoned the employment and he has not joined his services after his transfer to Ahmedabad.
Additional Issue Nos. 5 and 6.-The Labour Court has found that since the workman has not complied with the transfer order and has rushed up to the Court, therefore, it was not necessary to hold a domestic enquiry by the employer particularly when it has already been held that the workman has voluntarily abandoned the employment.
Additional Issue No. 7.-The Labour Court has recorded finding regarding the effect of the workman's status after he has been transferred by impugned order as to whether he was entitled for four days' leave or not and finally Labour Court has found that the termination of the services of the workman by the employer w.e.f, 12.2.1975 was valid and legal and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award workman approached this Court. It is not disputed that the letter of appointment dated 26th October, 1971 issued to the workman clearly states that the workman is being appointed on the post of Stenographer at its Ghaziabad Office. The workman stated that there is no such term and condition which could ask him to be transferred from Ghaziabad. The workman has taken up the defence that because of his participation in the trade union activities, he has been victimised by the employer by way of transferring him at Ahmedabad contrary to the terms and conditions of the appointment letter. This fact was not denied by the employer in the rejoinder-affidavit. But as stated above, the award of the Labour Court only deals with the additional issues framed by the Labour Court and does not deal with the reference made to it and answered to the reference only in one sentence which is the last sentence of the award.
5. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the Labour Court has miserably failed to perform its statutory duty conferred upon it and as held by the Apex Court in a decision reported in 2001 (90) FLR 754 (Supreme Court); Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U.P. State Electricity Board and Ors. The provisions of law indicate that if in the opinion of the Government, an industrial dispute exists then Government can make a reference and the Labour Court is under statutory obligation to answer the same.
6. From the facts of the present case, it is clear that the Labour Court except for answering the additional issues has not considered the reference made to it by the authority and has not considered the case of the respective parties and the evidence adduced by them in answering the reference made to it.
7. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the Labour Court his miserably failed to perform its statutory duty when it has answered the reference in one sentence without considering the respective case particularly when the workman set up the case that he has been victimised by the employer and further that according to the terms and conditions of the letter of appointment he could not be transferred from Ghaziabad to Ahmedabad, clearly demonstrates that what the workman says, may be true. Since at this stage it would not be proper to express any opinion with regard to the case set up by the workman, suffice to say that for the reasons stated above, the award of the Labour Court deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed.
8. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The award of the Labour Court dated 16.8.1996 is quashed. The Labour Court is directed to answer the reference made to it expeditiously considering the long pendency of the litigation between the parties and since there is no interim order in this writ petition, therefore, employers are directed to pay half of the wages that would have been paid had his services been not terminated on 12.2.1975 till the date of this judgment, as it was admitted that the employers have absolutely no material to demonstrate that the workman was gainfully employed during this period. With the aforesaid direction the Labour Court is directed to decide the matter expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before it.