TAHIR MOHAMMAED ANSARI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER TELECOMMUNICATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Shri PC Master, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 and Ms. R.V. Acharya, learned advocate waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent nos.. 3 and 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside the impugned order/ communication dated 31.1.2008 passed by respondent nos. 3 and 4, by which the appropriate authority has refused to refer the dispute to the concerned Labour Court.

(3.) It appears that the petitioner raised an industrial disputes against respondent nos. 1 and 2 with respect to his termination and for reinstatement with full back wages. That respondent no.3 by order dated 31.1.2008 refused to refer the dispute to the Labour Court observing that "the claimant has failed to furnish documentary evidence to establish that he was employed by the management upto 28.2.2004 hence the matter raised cannot be construed as an industrial dispute". Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Hardesh Kumar Rajaram Vs. K.V.B. Unni and Ors. reported in 2000(3) GLR 196 as well as in the case of Chetan Somabhai Parmar Vs. The Desk Officer, Govt. of India reported in 2004(3) GLH (UJ) 12,, Shri Parekh, learned advocate for the petitioner has requested to allow the present petition and directed the appropriate authority to refer the dispute to the Labour Court for its adjudication. It is submitted that as held by this Court relying upon the Supreme Court judgment it is held that only when the demand is perverse and frivolous, the appropriate authority can refuse the dispute to be referred to Tribunal /Labour Court. It is submitted that it is also held by this Court that appropriate authority while exercising the power under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot delve into the merits of the case, Therefore, it is requested to allow the present Special Civil Application.