POWER CELL BATTERY KARMIKARA Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the endorsement dated 25-1-2008 issued by respondent No. 1, refusing to refer the dispute.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted a dispute was referred to the conciliator. Before the conciliation officer, statement and counter statement were filed. On the basis of the said statement and rival contentions, the conciliation officer submitted his failure report dated 1-12-2007 to the Government. The Government by its impugned endorsement, observed that the petitioner is a junior Officer and as such, he is not a workman and refused to refer the matter.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that, before the Conciliation Officer, the 3rd respondent/management filed the statement of objections and the Conciliation Officer considering the objections and the claim petition found that there is a serious dispute between the parties and reported the failure of conciliation. He submitted that, from the statement and counter statement filed before the Conciliation Officer, it shows that, there is a serious dispute between the parties as regards to, 'whether the petitioner is a workman or not'. The workman has relied on several documents and the Management has also relied on several documents. When there is voluminous documents which requires a proper adjudication, it is not for the Government to decide the dispute, it has to be only done by the Industrial tribunal or the Labour Court. He referred to sec. 12, sub-section (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which reads as under :-