SULTAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two questions arise in this appeal, namely.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. Way back in 1955, the appellant had joined the respondents as a workmen (Khalasi). He was promoted on September 6, 1972 as a tape-reader. He was served with a chargesheet on June 28, 1979 and his services were terminated on August 9, 1979. On June 30, 1981, he made a demand on the respondent/employer for reinstatement which was rejected. Thereafter, he made an application for reference under Section 10 of the Act to the State Government which was rejected by order dated October 20, 1981. The appellant again made a representation on March 25, 1982 and the Minister made a note on the representation directing to make a reference. However, since no communication was received by the appellant, he wrote a letter to the Labour Commissioner, Haryana, on April 26, 1984 but to no avail. He then filed the writ petition. By order dated August 6, 1984 in CWP No. 3885/84, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

(3.) The first question is whether the State should give a hearing to the employer before making a reference on second application, since on an earlier occasion, it was rejected. Section 10 (1) of the Act provides that where an appropriate Government is of the opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may, at any time, by order in writing refer the dispute to named authorities. Section 12 (5) of the Act postulates that on receipt and consideration of a report from the conciliation offer, if the Government is satisfied that there is a case for reference to the Board, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, it will make such reference. Where the appropriate Government does not make such a reference it shall record reasons therefore and communicate to the parties concerned.