UMESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner workman by this petition impugns the order dated 27th November, 2007 of the respondent no.1 UOI, acting as the appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, refusing to refer for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court the dispute raised by the petitioner workman with the respondent no.2 DDA. The reason given for such refusal is "Cessation of the services of the claimant came to an end consequent on his resignation vide his letter dated 11.12.1999 and hence the matter raised cannot be construed as an "industrial dispute"."

(2.) While the respondent no.2 DDA had contended that the petitioner had resigned from employment, the petitioner workman had before the Conciliation Officer disputed the said fact. The petitioner workman had in this regard relied upon the public notices got published by the respondent no.2 DDA in the newspapers asking him to rejoin duty. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner workman is that if the case set up by the respondent no.2 DDA of the petitioner workman having resigned on 11th December, 1999 was correct there was no occasion for publication of the said notices in the newspaper on 28th April, 2002. The case of the petitioner workman is that after the said notices the respondent no.2 DDA terminated his services without holding any inquiry and which makes the said order of termination bad.

(3.) The counsel for the respondent no.2 DDA has contended that the petitioner workman has neither in the pleadings before the Conciliation Officer nor before this court controverted the letter of resignation. It is thus contended that the appropriate Government was correct in refusing to refer the dispute since the petitioner workman has admitted the resignation. It is further contended that in view of the resignation, no inquiry was necessary. It is also contended that the letter of appointment relied on by the petitioner workman is forged and fabricated.