CHETANBHAI BABUBHAI GOHIL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .By way of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd.7/12/1999 (Annexure-C) passed by the respondent No.1 denying to make Industrial Reference on the ground that the petitioner is not a workman. The petitioner raised a industria dispute over illegal termination of his services with the respondent NO.2 Bank. The Conciliation Officer conciliated the dispute and submitted failure of the Conciliation Report to the respondent No.1 - Union of India for reference of the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly argued that the respondent No.1 has gone into the merits of the dispute and has decided and adjudicated the dispute holding that the projected dispute is not covered under the provisions of the I.D. Act, 1947 defining "workman". He has further argued that the Government has no authority to go into the merits of the matter and adjudicate the dispute. It is for the Industrial Tribunal to decide the dispute and not the respondent No.1.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., delivered in Civil Appeal No.2534 of 1989, decided on April 28, 1989. In the said decision the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under;-