RAJ PAL Vs. SECRETARY LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 21.1.1998 whereby the Secretary(Labour) has refused to refer the dispute as alleged by the petitioner to have arisen. The order of the Secretary (Labour) reads as under:

(2.) The petitioner alleged that he was terminated from services in the year 1989. It is the case of the petitioner that he was called upon to join duty vide letter dated 19.7.1989, however, when he went to join his duties, he was not taken on duty. The petitioner thereafter kept silent for about six and a half years and approached the Labour Commissioner after six and a half years making allegations that he was not allowed to join duty in July, 1989. When he was allegedly refused to join duty, he neither made any complaint to labour authorities nor to any union nor he served any notice upon the employer that he was not allowed to join duty. I consider that where the allegations made by the workman are that he was not allowed to join duty, it is obligatory upon the workman to approach the labour authorities so that labour inspector can approach the management for his joining duty and if there is refusal, same is recorded or he should approach the Conciliation Officer, who may called upon the management to explain the refusal of duty. The Labour Commissioner cannot refer a dispute blindly only on the allegations of the workman without there being any material to support the same. Before a dispute can be referred, he has to ensure about the existence of a genuine dispute. There should be some evidence about termination of services of the workman, either there should be a letter of termination or there should be a report of Labour Inspector that he had accompanied the workman and the workman was not allowed to join. A bare allegation of termination made by the workman after 6" years, without there being any other material, would not be sufficient to refer a dispute about termination. The petitioner should have raised a demand of his reinstatement, promptly with the management, by serving a notice. In order to refer dispute, there should be some proof of the workman being employed with the management. I consider that stale/fake or pseudo disputes cannot be referred by the Appropriate Government and the power of referring a dispute must be exercised with caution and care. The dispute must be referred, reflecting the real position and the stand of both the parties.

(3.) It is settled law that stale dispute is no dispute. In the case of Nedungadi Bank Limited Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty and Ors 2000(1) SLR 636, the Supreme Court held: