Heard leaned counsel for the parties.
Challenging the reference order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner under section 4-K dated 29.11.1999 and the consequential award of the Labour court dated 17.4.2013, the first argument of Sri Piyush Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reference was made under the notification dated 29.8.1990 read with section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The said notification does not delegate the power of State Government to make reference under section 4-K of the Act to the Deputy Labor Commissioner, Noida.
In response to the said argument, Sri Y.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the aforesaid notification had been amended on 23.7.1996 and further by 15.5.1998 whereupon Deputy Labour Commissioner, Noida (Gautam Budh Nagar) has been delegated the power to make reference.
The second argument is that the reference itself was incomplete.The service of respondent No.3 was not terminated but he had voluntarily resigned with effect from 19.2.1999 and the said dispute regarding resignation not having been referred, the Labour Court is not justified in making the award treating that the service of respondent No.3 was terminated with effect from the aforesaid date.
In support of the above arguments, reliance has been placed upon a decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of G.I.S. Limited Vs. State of West Bengal and others 2014 LLR 290 whereas in rebuttal Sri Y.K.Sinha has relied upon the decision of Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court(U.P) and others 1989 (58) ( H.C. L.B) 429 ( Allahabad).
In view of the respective submission of the parties, the matter requires consideration.
Sri Piyush Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.K. Sinha, learned counsel for respondent No.3 wants time and agree for finally arguing the matter on 25.3.2014.
Put up on 25.3.2014.
Order Date :- 13.3.2014 G.S