SURESHANAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had made a claim before the Conciliation Officer alleging that he was illegally terminated by respondent No. 2 bank after he had worked with the bank for 15-16 years. The notice of the petitioner's claim was sent by the Conciliation Officer to respondent No. 2 bank and since no conciliation could took place between the parties, the Conciliation Officer submitted failure report dated 24. 06. 2005 to the appropriate Government. On receipt of the failure report from the Conciliation Officer, the Government vide impugned order dated 31. 10. 2005 (at page 16 of the paper book) declined to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner for his reinstatement for adjudication of the labour Court for the following reasons:-

(2.) MS. Deepali Gupta learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the impugned order passed by the Government declining to refer the dispute for adjudication to the Labour court is adjudicatory in nature. Her contention is that the Government could not have taken upon itself the task of deciding whether the petitioner had worked for 240 days in the year preceding the date of his alleged termination or not. Ms. Gupta learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in view of stand taken by respondent No. 2 bank before the Conciliation officer denying the relationship of employer and employee between the parties, it was incumbent upon the Government to have referred the dispute for decision to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court so that both the parties could be heard on the stand taken by respondent No. 2 in opposition to the claim of the petitioner regarding relationship of employer and employee between them. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner therefore submits that the impugned order declining to refer the dispute passed by the government should be set aside by this Court and the Government may be asked to consider to refer the dispute for adjudication to the CGIT.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. R. S. Mathur learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 has relied upon a recent judgment of this Court dated 06. 07. 2009 in circumstances, this Court has already upheld the order of the Government declining to refer the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court. Mr. Mathur has further contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned order of the government declining to refer the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court because the petitioner was never employed by respondent No. 2 bank and for that reason, the conciliation before the Conciliation Officer had failed. The submission of Mr. Mathur is that it was within the realm of the appropriate government to examine the relationship of employer and employee between the parties in order to satisfy itself whether there exist dispute between them or not which require adjudication by the Labour Court.