IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 10091 of 2008 Date of decision: 3rd July, 2008 Electronic System Punjab Employees Union (Regd.), Mohali … Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Punjab, Chandigarh and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. R.S. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. The present writ petition has been preferred by Electronic System Punjab Employees Union (Regd.), Mohali through its General Secretary, Amrik Singh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Union’). On 24th December, 1998, Union served a notice of demand upon M/s Electronics System Punjab Limited, Mohali, through its Managing Director (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Management’) to ensure regular supply of essential raw- material for the component plant, so that the production operations in the plant are not shut down. It is further stated that idling of the plant, machinery and manpower has caused underutilization of the installed capacity to the tune of 80 per cent. On the basis of the demand notice, the following reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was made to the Labour Court: “Whether the demand of the union for safeguarding the jobs and livelihood of employees and for survival of the Civil Writ Petition No. 10091 of 2008 respondents component plant and electronics division, the Management is required to provide regular supply of all the essential raw materials to ensure uninterrupted industrial activity, is justified? If so, what directions are required to be issued in this behalf?” The Union submitted a claim statement (Annexure P-4), in which it was stated that there was a financial indiscipline on the part of the Management and financial irregularities have led to shortage of raw material availability for functioning of the plants and this has resulted into misdeeds and mismanagement on the part of the Management. The statement of claims is a kind of charter, where many ills prevailing in the industrial unit, to which petitioner-Union represented, have been stated. It is a kind of white paper by the Union as to what has led and caused losses in the industrial unit. We need not detail each and every part of the claim notice. The Management filed a short reply to the statement of claims, in which it was stated that various attempts have been made to revive the respondent-company, which has been declared sick company, by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). It was further stated that all further actions shall be taken in accordance with the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies Special Provisions Act, 1985. Labour Court, vide its impugned award, after hearing counsel for the Management and the Union, formulated following preliminary issues: “1. Whether this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the matter in dispute in view of the preliminary objections taken in written statement? 2. Whether the matter raised in the Civil Writ Petition no. 2000 of 1999 is the same subject matter as has been raised in the Reference?” 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 10091 of 2008 It took into consideration the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as has been specified in 3rd Schedule of the Act. It also noticed Section 2(k) of the Act, which defines industrial dispute and after analyzing various provisions of the Act, concluded as under: “The alleged dispute is also not connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the condition of labour of any person. Uninterrupted supply of raw material cannot even be remotely covered within the “disputes” and “difference” as mentioned in Section 2(k) of the Act, neither it can be said to be connected with the conditions of Labour.” The Labour Court also took into consideration various aspects of industrial disputes and differences and finally returned the following finding: “16. On the basis of foregoing discussion, I am of the opinion that the dispute raised in the demand notice and referred to this Tribunal for adjudication is not covered within the meaning of an “industrial dispute” as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act and as such this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and to pass an award in the reference before it. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the respondent and against the claimant union.” We have heard counsel for the Union, perused the pleadings and the award of the Labour Court. We are of the view that rightly, the Labour Court had concluded that it cannot go beyond the ambit of the dispute specified in the Act. The award of the Labour Court is just and apt and has taken into account all relevant legal considerations. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that once the reference was made, it was beyond the scope of the Labour Court to determine whether the reference constituted a dispute or not. It was bound 3 Civil Writ Petition No. 10091 of 2008 to answer the reference on the basis of the evidence. We are afraid, this contention cannot be accepted as Labour Court has to act within the ambit and parameters of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, no interference is called for. Hence the present petition is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE [ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA] JUDGE July 3, 2008 rps 4