MANAGEMENT OF PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LTD., JAMMU Vs. G.M. HAJEE LABOUR COURT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the existence of an industrial dispute between the Punjab National Bank Ltd., Jammu and its employees regarding certain matters, the Government passed two notifications (1) SRO 809 dated 16.7.1966 whereby in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 7 of the Jammu and Kashmir Industrial Disputes Act, 2006 the Government constituted a Labour Court consisting of one member only and appointed A.D.M., Jammu to be the member of the said Court. By means of the second notification SRO 810 dated 16.7.1966 the Government referred the industrial disputes between the Punjab National Bank Ltd., and its employees to this labour Court which was constituted under SRO 809 above mentioned and referred the following matters to it for adjudication :

(2.) Objections have been filed on behalf of the State and the employees of the petitioner. The employees of petitioner, i.e. respondent No. 3 in their objections state that the writ petition is mala fide just to protract giving relief to the employees of the Bank and to defeat their legitimate claims that the points referred to the respondent No. 1 for adjudication are most vital and have been pending for a long period and need expeditious disposal; that the petition is not maintainable as the order of the Government appointing the labour Court and the action and proceedings of this labour Court cannot be challenged, That the petitioner has participated in the proceedings; that the appointment of the respondent No. 1 as labour Court is correct and is not ultra vires.

(3.) On behalf of the State it is stated that Sec. 9 of the Act being a complete bar to the adjudication of the matters raised as the preliminary issues, the labour Court respondent No. 1 has rightly refrained from discussing the aforesaid matters on merits; that the ban contained in Sec. 9 of the Act applies to all kinds of Courts and tribunals and is not restricted to civil Court alone that the supervisory or discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to determine a matter which the statute prohibits to be adjudged before any legal forum. It is further stated that the office of the A.D.M. was at the relevant time and continues to be held by a person who is qualified for appointment as a Judge of the High Court and as such there is no defect in the appointment of the A.D.M., Jammu as the labour Court. It is further stated that no separate notification by name appointing respondent No. 1 as the labour Court was necessary nor was there any necessity of issuing a fresh notification on the transfer of the previous A.D.M.