JUDGMENT
1. Leave granted. Respondent 1 [workman] was employed with Respondent 4 [Mahalaxmi Mills Ltd.] The management of the Mills was taken over and an Authorised Controller was appointed on 09.01.1967 under the provisions of the Industries [Development and Regulation] Act, 1951. During the period of management, Respondent 1 was charge-sheeted for misconduct on 19.01.1973 and was dismissed from service by the Authorised Controller on 16.04.1973. The workman raised an industrial dispute challenging the termination of has service and consequently a reference of the dispute was made for adjudication to the Labour Court. While the reference was pending before the Labour Court, the Sick Textile Undertakings [Nationalisation] Act, 1974 came into force with effect from 01.04.1974 and Respondent 4 [Mills] was nationalised under the said Act. In terms of the provisions of the said Act, the right, title and interest in the Mills vested in the Central Government and subsequently stood transferred and vested in the first appellant, National Textile [Delhi, Punjab and Rajasthan] Corporation Ltd.
2. In view of these developments, the workman made an application before the Labour Court for impleading the first appellant [the Corporation] as well as the second appellant [the General Manager of the Mills]. By its order dated 1.04.1976, the Labour Court dismissed the said application. On 28.01.1977, the workman made another application and this time for impleading the owner of the Mills as well as the State of Rajasthan. That application was dismissed as against the State of Rajasthan. Thereafter, the Labour Court dismissed the reference itself on 30.03.1979 on the ground that no relief could be claimed against the owner of the Mills.
3. Aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court, the workman preferred a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned decision held that the dispute had to be continued against the first appellant. The High Court, however, went further and held that the proceedings before the Labour Court were contested only on one ground viz. against whom the award could be made, and proceeded to grant reinstatement to the workman with full back wages from the date of his dismissal. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
4. It is not disputed before us that the first appellant is the employer of the workman on and from 01.04.1974 and hence is the proper party to the reference before the Labour Court. The adjudication, therefore, will have to proceed between the workman and the first appellant [National Textile Corporation], However, what is disputed before us is that without an adjudication, which has admittedly not taken place, the High Court could not have granted relief to the workman which it has done. It is also contended that if the workman is granted any relief such as back wages, such relief can be enforced against the first appellant only from 01.04.1974 and not from a date earlier to that. It is contended that for the earlier back wages, the Controller, alone is responsible. Mr. Singhvi, learned Counsel appearing for the workman, could not dispute that there had been no adjudication of the dispute and the High Court had wrongly proceeded on the footing that the Labour Court had granted the relief and the only ground on which the petition was contested was the person against whom the liability could be enforced.
5. According to us, the question as to the period with reference to which the liability could be enforced against the first appellant has not yet arisen and hence it is not necessary for us to decide the second contention urged on behalf of the appellants. That question would arise only if the grievance of the workman is upheld and he is granted reinstatement with full back wages. However, there is every merit in the first contention of the appellant, namely, that the High Court had erroneously proceeded to hold that the workman was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages without there being any adjudication of the dispute.
6. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and send the matter back to the Labour Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur for adjudication of the dispute raised by the workman, and direct the court to dispose of the matter according to law within four months of the receipt of the order of this Court.
7. Before the Labour Court, appellants may raise all the contentions on merit of the dispute as well as the extent of their liability, if any, that may flow if the award is made in favour of the workman. The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.