Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s Arora Sari Emporium, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of the reference order dated 03.02.2022 issued under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the consequential notice dated 09.02.2022 issued by the Labour Court in Adjudication Case No. 1 of 2022. The petitioner also sought a direction restraining the Labour Court from proceeding further with the adjudication proceedings.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the High Court should interfere with the reference order issued under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
  2. Whether respondent No. 4 could be treated as a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act.
  3. Whether the petitioner should first raise its preliminary objections before the Labour Court instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The petitioner contended that M/s Arora Sari Emporium is a registered firm engaged in lawful business and regularly pays GST and other applicable taxes to the Government.
  • It was argued that respondent No. 4, namely Ashish Pandey, does not fall within the definition of a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act.
  • Therefore, according to the petitioner, the industrial dispute itself was not maintainable, and consequently the reference order and subsequent proceedings before the Labour Court deserved to be quashed.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The learned Standing Counsel submitted that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the reference made under Section 4-K, the proper remedy was to raise a preliminary objection before the Labour Court itself.
  • It was argued that the Labour Court was competent to examine such objections before proceeding with adjudication.

Court Order / Findings

The Allahabad High Court declined to quash the reference order at the writ stage.

The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file its preliminary objection before the Labour Court within three weeks.

The Court further directed the Prescribed Authority/Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar, to first decide the preliminary objection strictly in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties and preferably within three months thereafter.

Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with the above directions.

Important Clarification

  • A challenge to a reference made under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may not ordinarily warrant interference by the High Court when an effective remedy exists before the Labour Court.
  • Questions relating to whether a person falls within the definition of a "workman" can appropriately be raised as a preliminary objection before the Labour Court.
  • The Labour Court should decide such jurisdictional objections before proceeding with adjudication on merits wherever appropriate.
  • The High Court emphasized the importance of exhausting the statutory remedy before invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

 Link to Download the Order

https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1785325644_2264compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.