Labour Law

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

— Ss. 10 and 15 — Reference — Jurisdiction of Labour Court — Scope of interference with Labour Court's award by High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 — Jurisdiction of Labour Court, held, emanates from the order of reference and does not extend beyond the terms thereof — An award passed by Labour Court in excess of its jurisdiction, held, is capable of correction by High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review — In the present case the only question referred at the instance of the retrenched workman was as to the legality of the appointment of another person in his place in violation of S. 25-H, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Labour Court finding that S. 25-H was not violated — However, it framing an issue regarding the purported non-compliance with R. 77, ID Rules by omission to maintain seniority record as contemplated therein — Labour Court deciding that issue against the management and granting relief to the retrenched workman on that ground — The framing of such an issue by Labour Court, held, suffered from jurisdictional error and ought to have been interfered with by High Court, (2006) 5 SCC 123-A

Labour Law

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957

— Rr. 77 and 79 — Violation of R. 77 — Consequences of — Where the only question in reference was whether the appointment of a new workman in place of the retrenched workman was in violation of S. 25-H, Industrial Disputes Act and the Labour Court found that there was no violation of S. 25-H, held, violation of R. 77 may attract penalty under R. 79 but would not by itself entitle the retrenched workman, to reinstatement, (2006) 5 SCC 123-B

Labour Law

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957

— R. 77 — Whether mandatory — Conclusive opinion not expressed, (2006) 5 SCC 123-C