Umakant Pattnayak and Others vs Management, Gaiety Cinema and Others

R.K. Patra, A.C.J.

The petitioners in this writ petition seek quashing of the award dated 25.8.1999 (Annexure-8) made by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur in I.D. Case No. 60 of 1996 dismissing the reference.

The case of the petitioners is that they are all workmen working as such in M/s. Gaiety Talkies, Sambalpur for more than 15 years. The Management temporarily closed the Cinema Hall from 13.12.1994 on the ground that the same would be repaired/ renovated. Although the Hail was closed, the petitioners were attending to their duties. On the demand made by some of the workers, the Management paid to them their full wages till February, 1995, The Cinema Hall was reopened on 12.12.1996 and the petitioners continued in their respective duties. But for the reasons known to the Management, it refused to pay the back-wages for the period the Hall was closed. Dispute was accordingly raised on behalf of the petitioners and the State Government referred the following dispute for adjudication by the Labour Court :

"Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Gaiety Talkies, Sambalpur in terminating the services of Fourteen workmen (as per list) w.e.f. 1.3.1995 is legal and/or justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled ?"

The Management filed its written statement before the Labour Court stating that the petitioners were being appointed on daily wage basis when the Management was with one K.C. Joseph. The present proprietor, K.G. Paul, had not engaged them. There is no record available with the Management that the petitioners were paid any dues during the period the Cinema Hall was closed.

The Labour Court in the impugned award has held that the document of title and record-of-rights in respect of Gaiety Talkies stood in the name of K.C. Joseph and on 13.2.1995 Gaiety Talkies stood mutated in the name of K.C. Paul, who continues to be the owner of the Cinema Hall from that date. It further held that K.C. Paul had not terminated the services of the petitioners with effect from 1.3.1995. Regarding payment of the dues for the period the Cinema Hall was closed, the Labour Court declined to answer the claim as such dispute was not referred to it for adjudication.

Counsel for both parties stated before us that the petitioners are working under Gaiety Talkies. From the records as presented by the petitioners, it appears that their grievance is with regard to non-payment of dues during the period when the Cinema Hell was closed. But they seem to have raised dispute over termination of services alleged to have been made. Basing on the dispute raised by them, the Government made the reference out of which the impugned award arises.

There is no dispute that the Labour Court cannot travel beyond the reference, made to it for adjudication. The claim, of the petitioners for wages for the period during which the Cinema Hail was closed in the facts and circumstances cannot be said to be an incidental matter so that the Labour Court could have gone into the merit of the said claim. As the said dispute is independent and foreign to the order of reference, the Labour Court rightly declined to adjudicate it.

For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any illegality on the part of the Labour Court in dismissing the reference.

There is no merit in this Writ Petition which is accordingly dismissed.

M. Papanna, J.

I agree.