VINOD N SOLANKI Vs. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No one appears for the respondent. In this case Rule was issued on 25-4-1994 and notices were sent by post on 3-5-1994 to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Shram Shakti Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. Since then, almost three years have elapsed. The letter must in ordinary course have been served on the respondent No. 2 in the ordinary course of business. In that view of the matter respondent No. 2 must be deemed to have been served.

(2.) The petition raises a short issue. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 17-9-1994 communicated by the Desk Officer refusing to make reference of the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner to the appropriate Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal under Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) As per the averments made in the petition, petitioner was employed with the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Doraji Branch as a Clerk, since 12-9-1988 on a monthly salary of Rs. 1302 and his services came to be terminated with effect from 1-4-1990 in breach of Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act and also acted in violation of 25-H in recruiting new hands thereafter. The petitioner raised the dispute about the legality of the termination order, by lodging complaint before respondent No. 1 - Conciliation Officer. The conciliation having failed a failure report was submitted to the appropriate Government. The appropriate Government, Central Government in the present case, informed the petitioner about its refusal to make a reference of the Industrial Dispute for adjudication. The reason for refusal reads as under: