JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. Heard Sri S.S. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions, Sri K. Sahi learned counsel appearing for workmen and Miss. Suman Sirohi learned standing counsel.
2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties, by consent of the parties, all the writ petitions are being finally disposed of.
3. By these writ petitions, orders passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner, Moradabad Region, Moradabad making reference of an industrial dispute under Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to Labour Court, Rampur have been challenged.
4. Similar question being involved in all the writ petitions they are being decided by this common judgment. It is sufficient to order pleadings in Writ Petitions No. 27886 of 2004 for deciding the dispute raised in all the writ petitions.
5. Sri S.S. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner raised following submission for challenging the impugned order of reference dated 17th June, 2004:-
(i) The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Moradabad vide notification dated 29th August, 1990 issued by the State Government exercise jurisdiction of making a reference under the Act with regard to district, namely, Moradabad, Rampur and Bijnor District Jyotibaphule Nagar not being included in the said notification under the jurisdiction of Deputy Labour Commissioner, Moradabad, the reference order dated 17th June, 2004 is without jurisdiction.
(ii) By notification dated 28th August, 1990 issued under Section 6H (2) of the Act jurisdiction of different Labour Courts situate in Uttar Pradesh including Labour Court, Rampur has been provided in which district Rampur, Moradabad, Bijnor, Nainital Almora and Pithoragarh have been included. District Jyotibaphule Nagar not being included in the jurisdiction assigned to Labour Court, Rampur under Section 6-H(2) of the Act, the reference to Labour Court, Rampur is not maintainable.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on a interim order passed by Division Bench of this Court dated 20th March, 2002 in Special Appeal No. 331 of 2002 which appeal was filed against the judgment of leraned Single Judge of this Court dated 27th February, 2002 in Writ Petition No. 8667 of 2002 (Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. v. Labour Court and Ors.) by which judgment writ petition challenging the reference to Labour Court, Rampur was dismissed.
7. Sri K. Sahi, learned counsel appearing for workman, refuting the submission raised by counsel for the petitioner, contended that notification dated 29th August, 1990 releid by counsel for the petitioner has been modified by subsequent notification dated 11th April, 2002 issued by the State Government copy of which has been filed as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 in which notification Deputy Labour Commissioner, Moradabad is shown to have jurisdiction against districts Moradabad, Rampur, Jyotibaphule Nagar and Bijnor, hence the submission of petitioner's counsel that Deputy Labour Commissioner, Moradabad has no jurisdiction is misconceived. It is contended that writ petition has been filed by the petitioner basing the writ petition on notification dated 29th August, 1990 which notification has been subsequently modified by the State Government on 11th April, 2002, hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Sri Sahi further contended that it was in the jurisdiction of Deputy Labour Commissioner, Moradabad to refer the dispute to any Labour Court situate in his jurisdiction and no error has been committed in making reference to Labour Court, Rampur with regard to dispute arising in district Jyotibaphule Nagar since in district Jyotibaphule Nagar there is no Labour Court constituted by the State Government.
8. Miss Suman Sirohi, learned standing counsel, refuting the submission of counsel for the petitioner, submitted that Deputy Labour commissioner, Moradabad has jurisdiction to make a reference of an industrial dispute arising in district Jyotibaphule Nagar and the reference is fully competent. It is contended that Deputy Labour Commissioner has jurisdiction to make reference to any Labour Court situate in its jurisdiction and no error has been committed by Deputy Labour Commissioner in making reference to Labour Court, Rampur pertaining to district Jyotibaphule Nagar since there is no Labour Court in Jyotibaphule Nagar. Reliance has also been placed on notification dated 29th November, 2002 issued by the State Government in exercise of power under Section 11-A of the Act delegating its jurisdiction to various Additional Deputy Labour Commissioner in the State. It is contended that there was no lack of jurisdiction in making a reference and the writ petition is devoid of merit. She further submitted that the interim order relied by counsel for the petitioners in Special Appeal No. 331 of 2002 arising out of Writ Petition no. 8667 of 2002 (Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. v. Labour Court and Ors.) is not relevant for deciding the dispute raised in this writ petitions. She submitted that in Writ Petition No. 8667 of 2002, the writ petition was decided on 27.2.2002 on the basis of notification of the year 1990 (28th August, 1990), subsequent to which the State Government issued the notification on 11th April, 2002 which has been filed as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2), hence the notification which was issued subsequent to passing of the judgment by learned single Judge could not be before the Court, hence the said judgment is not applicable. She further contended that in this writ petition reliance is not being placed on the judgment of learned single Judge dated 27th February, 2002.
9. I have considered the submissions raised by counsel for the parties and persued the record.
10. In the writ petition the petitioner has taken only one ground for challenging the reference, i.e., Deputy Labour Commissioner, Moradabad has no jurisdiction to make reference with regard to any industrial dispute in the area of district Jyotibaphule Nagar. Reliance in the writ petition has been placed on the notification dated 29th August, 1990 by which notification the State Government exercising its power under Section 11-A of the Act delegated its jurisdiction to make reference to various Deputy Labour Commissioner/Additional Labour Commissioner. In the notification dated 29th August, 1990 a schedule is given relevant extract of which is as below:-
11. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government in which it has been mentioned in paragraph 10 that at the time when notification dated 29th August, 1990 was issued district Jyotibaphule Nagar was not in existence and it was part of district, Moradabad at that time. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that notification dated 29th August, 1990 was superseded by the subsequent notification dated 29th November, 2002 in which the jurisdiction of Deputy Labour Commissioner, Moradabad also includes district Jyotibaphule Nagar. The relevant extract of the schedule of notification dated 29th Nopvember, 2002 is as below:-
vf/kdkjh dk uke vf/kdkfjrk {ks= 1 2 3 1 eq[;ky; Lrj ij vij Jek;qDr lEiw.kZ izn'k 2 [email protected] Jek;qDr] dkuiqj laHkkx] dkuiqj dkuiqj uxj] dkuiqj nsgkr] bVkok] Q:Z[kkckn] dUukt] vkSjs;k vkSj mUuko ftyk A 10 mi Jek;qDr] eqjknkckn laHkkx] eqjknkckn A eqjknkckn] jkeiqj] T;kfrokQwys uxj vkSj fctukSj ftyk A
12. In view of the notification dated 29th November, 2002 which has superseded the earlier notification dated 29th August, 1990, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Moradabad has been conferred jurisdiction pertaining to district Jyotibaphule Nagar also and the contention raised in the writ petition does not survive. The writ petition does not refer to the notification dated 11th April, 2002 and 29th November, 2002 although writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 22nd July, 2004. In view of the above, the first submission raised by counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.
13. In supplementary affidavit filed in the writ petition, the petitioner has brought on the record another notification dated 28th August, 1990 (issued under Section 6-H(2) of the Act). On the basis of notification dated 28th August, 1990 it has been contended by counsel for the petitioner that Labour Court, Rampur can exercise jurisdiction over district Rampur, Moradabad, Bijnor, Nainital, Almora and Pithoragarh and the State Government has not till today notified district Jyotibaphule Nagar over which Labour Court, Rampur shall exercise territorial jurisdiction. On the basis of the notification the submission raised by counsel for the petitioner is that Labour Court, Rampur has no jurisdiction to hear and decide any industrial dispute arising out of territorial area of district Jyotibaphule Nagar.
14. Before proceeding to consider the above submission. It is necessary to look into the provisions of the Act regarding constitution of the Labour Court and the reference of industrial dispute.
15. Labour Court is constituted under Section 4-A of the Act. Section 4-A(1) is quoted below:-
"[4-A. Labour Court.-(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Labour Courts for the adjudiction of industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in the First Schedule and for performing such other function as may be assigned to them under this Act."
16. A perusal of Section 4-A of the Act makes it clear that the State Government by notification in the official Gazette may constitute one or more Labour Courts for adjudication of industrial disputes specified in the first schedule. Section 4-K of the Act provides for reference of any industrial dispute by the State Government to a Labour Court Section 4-K of the Act is quoted below:-
"[4-K. Reference of disputes to Labour Court or Tribunal.- Where the State Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time by order in writing refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute to a Labour Court if the matter of industrial dispute is one of those contained in the First Schedule or to a Tribunal if the matter of dispute is one contained in the First Schedule or the Second Schedule for ajudication :
Provided that where the dispute relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule and is not likely to affect more than one hundred workmen the State Government may, if it is so thinks fit, make the reference to a Labour Court.]"
17. Section 6-H of the Act pertains to recovery of money due from an employer. Section 6-H(2) of the Act provides that where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, such benefit should be determined by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the State Government.
18. Section 4-A as noticed above provides for constitution of one or more Labour Courts for adjudication of industrial dispute. Section 4-A does not indicate that constitution of one or more Labour Court has to be with reference to any local or territorial jurisdiction. The constitution is for adjudication of industrial dispute relating to any matter specified in first schedule. There is nothing to indicate in Section 4-A of the Act that Labour Court constituted by State Government has to be with reference to any local or territorial jurisdiction. No provisions in the Act or Rules has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate that Labour Court constituted under Section 4-A is constituted with any local or territorial jurisdiction.
19. Section 4-K of the Act provides that State Government may refer the dispute to a Labour Court. There is nothing also in Section 4-K to indicate that the reference by the State Government has to be to the Labour Court having any territorial or local jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during his submission, has also submitted the State Government may be directed to refer the dispute since it has jurisdiction to make a reference to any Labour Court. Section 11-A of the Act provides for delegation of powers. Under Section 11-A the State Government by notification may direct that any power exercisable by it under the Act or Rules be exercisable by such officer or authority as may be specified in the notification. Section 11-A of the Act is quoted below:-
[11-A. Delegation of powers.- The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that any power exercisable by it under this Act or rules made thereunder shall, in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions if any, as may be specified, in the direction be exercisable also by such officer or authority subordinate to the State Government as may be specified in the notification.]"
20. Under Section 11-A of the Act, the State Government has delegated its jurisdiction to make reference under Section 4-K of the Act to Deputy Labour Commissioner, Moradabad regarding districts Moradabad, Rampur, Jyotibaphule Nagar and Bijnor. The Deputy Labour Commissioner thus has jurisdiction to make reference of industrial dispute arising in any of the districts as mentioned in the notification dated 11th April, 2002. The Deputy Labour Commissioner Moradabad having jurisdiction to make a reference under Section 4-K regarding industrial dispute arising in district Jyotibaphule Nagar, there is no lack of jurisdiction in the referring order. It has not been disputed by the parties that there is no Labour Court constituted in district Jyotibaphule Nagar. There being no Labour Court constituted in district Jyotibaphule Nagar, there does not appear to be violation of any provision of the Act by Deputy Labour Commissioner, Moradabad in making a reference of the industrial dispute arising in district Jyotibaphule Nagar to Labour Court, Rampur.
21. Reliance placed by counsel for the petitioner on the notification dated 28th August, 1990 issued under Sub-section (2) of Section 6-H of the Act also does not help the petitioner. Section 6-H(2), as quoted above, specifically provide that benefit be determined by such Labour Court as may be specified. The scheme of Sub-section (2) of Section 6-H of the Act itself provides that determination of the benefit has to be by specified Labour Court. Thus under Section 6-H(2) of the Act application has to be made by Labour Court specified in the notification. The scheme of constitution of Labour Court under Section 4-A of the Act or the provisions providing or making reference under Section 4-K does not contemplate reference to any specified Labour Court. Thus the notification under Section 6-H(2) of the Act, as relied by the counsel for the petitioner, does not substantiate the submission of the petitioner that Labour Court, Rampur shall have no jurisdiction to hear and decide an industrial dispute referred to it by a competent authority. The notification under Section 6-H(2) of the Act relied by counsel for the petitioner, thus is not relevant. It is further relevant to note that even the notification dated 28th August, 1990 was issued much before constitution of several new districts including district Jyotibaphuloe Nagar. The notification also includes various districts of Uttranchal State which were in existence at the time of issuance of the said notification. After creation of the State of Uttranchal, the Labour Courts must have been necessarily reconstituted necessitating issuance of another notification. However, in any view of the matter, as stated above, the notification dated 28th August, 1990 is not relevant with regard to Section 4-A and 4-K of the Act. In view of the foregoing discussions it is held that Deputy Labour Commissioner, Moradabd had jurisdiction to make reference of industrial dispute arising in district Jyotibaphule Nagar to Labour Court, Rampur.
22. The judgment in Writ Petition No. 8667 of 2002 (Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. v. Labour Court, U.P. District Rampur and Ors.) dated 27th February, 2002 was given on the basis of the notification of 1990 (29th August, 1990) issued under Section 6-H(2) of the Act. Against the said judgment Special Appeal No. 331 of 2002 has been filed in which interim order has also been granted on 20th March, 2002 which special appeal is pending. Learned standing counsel has rightly submitted that at the time when the said judgment was delivered notification dated 29th August, 1990 was in existence which was subsequently superseded by notification dated 29th November, 2002. In the present writ petition learned standing counsel as well as counsel for the workman has relied on the notification of the State Government dated 11th April, 2002 and 29th November, 2002 by which the earlier notification dated 29th August, 1990 has been superseded/modified. In view of the above the counsels for the respondents have not placed any reliance on the judgment of learned single Judge dated 27th February, 2002 in Writ Petition No. 8667 of 2002. The submission raised by learned standing counsel has, thus, substance that in this writ petition subsequent notification dated 11th April, 2002 and 29th November, 2002 having been relied, the writ petition can be disposed of on merits and the decision of the pending Special Appeal No. 331 of 2002 need not be awaited. The respondents having not placed any reliance on judgment dated 27th February, 2002 parties have been heard on merits.
23. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that respondent No. 2 is not workmen and the reference could not have been made. The said submission can very well be raised before the Labour Court and the same needs no consideration in this writ petition.
24. In result, all the writ petitions fails and are dismissed with costs.