(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order of reference made by the first respondent, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, dated 27.2.2009. By the aforesaid order, the Government of India had referred the issue relating to termination of 23 workers as per the names annexed to the order for adjudication by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Chennai. It was also stated that in case the Tribunal holds that termination was erroneous, then what relief those workmen were entitled to"
(2.) IT is seen from the records that the second respondent trade union had raised a dispute relating to non employment that termination of 23 workers were in order to destroy their trade union. On the representation sent by the second respondent, notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a remarks dated 10.3.2008 stating that they had decided to close the quarry operations with effect from 1.11.2006 and they had also informed the authorities. Since the workers owning agricultural lands, they are only working as a part time workers. But the workers were asked to come and collect their dues. On the contrary, they had entered into a contract for granite quarry with one Sridhar under raising-cum-sale system. IT is only the said Sridhar who is running the quarry. Since the second respondent union had insisted on the said contractor to recruit their members, he had also agreed to do so if so required. But, instead of persuading claim with the agreement holder, they had raised a dispute.
(3.) ON notice from this court, the first respondent Government of India had filed a counter affidavit dated Nil (February, 2010). It was stated that the Government has power under Section 10(1) to refer the dispute at any time and the power does not dry up merely because it was initially refused. Further, the Government of India has jurisdiction to refer the dispute relating to mines as the appropriate Government is the Government of India.