HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.485 of 2002 (M/S) U.P. State Road Transport Corp. … Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun & others … Respondents Dated:- 01st April, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri D. C. S. Rawat, the learned counsel for the petitioner. List has been revised. No one appears for the private respondents. The office report indicates that the respondent nos.2 & 3 have been served. It transpires that a show cause notice was issued to the respondent nos.2 & 3 to explain their conduct against certain charges. Instead of replying, the respondents filed an application under Section 11C of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act) with regard to the interpretation of Regulation 61(2)(c) and Regulation 61(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 (hereinafter referred as Regulations of 1981). The labour court, after considering the matter, passed the impugned order dated 31st August, 2001 holding that the acts of respondent nos.2 and 3 did not amount to misconduct under Regulation 61(2)(c) and 61(6) of the Regulations of 1981. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that the impugned order passed by the labour court cannot be sustained. Section 11C of the Act provides interpretation of standing orders certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1976. For facility, the provision of Section 11C of the Act is extracted hereunder:- “11C. Interpretation, etc. of standing orders.- If any question arises as to the application or interpretation of a standing order certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 any employer or workman may refer the question to any one of the Labour Courts specified for the disposal of such proceeding by the State 2 Government by notification in the Official Gazette, and the Labour Court to which the question is so referred shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, decide the question and such decision shall be final and binding on the parties.” The labour court has interpreted Regulation 61(2)(c) and Regulation 61(c) of the Regulations of 1981, which has been issued vide Notification No.3715/XXXI-12-1981 published in the U.P. Gazette Extraordinary on 19th June, 1981. These regulations have not been certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Consequently, the labour court had no jurisdiction to entertain an application filed under Section 11C of the Act on behalf of the workman nor had any power to interpret the provision of any regulation of the Regulations of 1981. Further, such regulations could be interpreted by the Corporation or by the State Government as contemplated under Regulation 7 of the Regulations of 1981. For facility, the said provision is extracted below:- “7. Interpretation.- The power to interpret these Regulations shall vest in the Corporation, in case of doubt or dispute, the matter shall be referred by the Government whose decision thereon be final.” In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 01.04.2010 LSR