V P JAYANARAYAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's termination of service was challenged and he raised an industrial dispute under S.2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, as can be seen from Ext. P1 representation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Trivandrum. By Exts. P2 management contended that he was appointed for temporary period and he had worked in the Bank only for 195 days. Therefore, provisions of S.25F will not be applicable. Therefore, there is no industrial dispute. The contentions in Ext. P2 were objected to by Ext. P3 letter. After failure of conciliation, failure report was sent. By Ext. P4, his request for reference was rejected stating that 'the workman has not put in 240 days service. He had appeared in test for regular recruitment but failed to qualify'. In effect the contentions of the management was accepted on merit and found that petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The Government had went into merits of the case and passed the order. S.2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines 'industrial dispute' as follows:

(2.) In State of Bombay v. K.P. Krishnan and Others (1960-II-LLJ 592) it was held that Government can consider prima facie merits of the dispute while deciding whether the matter should be referred or not. If the claim made is patently frivolous or is clearly belated, the appropriate Government may refuse to make a reference. Otherwise the Government cannot go into the merits of the dispute. In Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab and Others (1984-II-LLJ 396) Supreme Court quashed an order passed by the Government refusing to make a reference in the case of a bank employee as the Government went into merits of the matter. In M.P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh v. State of M.P. & Anr. (1985-I-LLJ 519) Supreme Court held that:

(3.) In Telco Convoy Driver Mazdoor Sangh v. State of Bihar and Others (1989-II-LJ 558) Supreme Court held that formation of opinion as to whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended is not the samething as to adjudicate the dispute itself on its merits. In this connection, I also refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Workmen of Syndicate Bank, Madras v. Government of India and Others (1985 I LLJ 93).