P MALLESHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Single Judge confirming the action taken by the appropriate Government refusing to make reference to the Labour Court under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') on the ground that the appellant-workman had not put in 240 days of service.

(2.) APPELLANT filed a petition with the appropriate Government for making a reference under Section 10 of the Act for referring the dispute between him and his employer to Labour Court for adjudication. Management in the conciliation proceeding before the concerned authority took the objection that the workman ceased to attend the office from february 1986 and that he has not put in 240 days of service. Conciliation Officer came to the conclusion that there was no material to show that the worker had put in 240 days of service. In the circumstances, conciliation Officer submitted a failure report. Acting on the report, the appropriate Government came to the conclusion that there is no subsisting dispute to be referred as there was no evidence to show that the worker was qualified for any relief under the Industrial Disputes Act. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the action of the respondents on the plea that the Government itself could not delve into the merits of the dispute which was the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour court. Learned Single Judge did not accept the contention of the appellant and rejected the writ petition. It was held that it is for the authorities to prima facie consider whether the claim made by the? worker is true or not. The Court cannot interfere in the discretion of the authorities with its orders. Apart from that the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the workman had failed to give any explanation for delay in approaching the authorities. The termination took place in 1986 and the dispute was raised by the workman in the year 1993-94.

(3.) THE order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. It has been held time and again by the Supreme Court of India as well as the different High Courts that the appropriate Government cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of the lis which is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court/industrial Tribunal. Reference may be made to Ram Avtar Sharma and Others v State of Haryana and Another: