M SUDALAI ANDI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to refer the disputes of the respective petitioners to the Industrial Tribunal, Second Floor, City Civil Court Building, High Court Compound, Chennai-600 104, by issuing notification as the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for deciding the disputes with a direction to dispose of the Industrial Disputes so referred within a period of six months. THE common prayer in the above writ petitions is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to refer the disputes raised by the respective petitioners to the Industrial Tribunal (Central Government) by issuing notification for deciding and dispose of the disputes within a period of six months.

(2.) THE petitioners claim that their age of retirement under the second respondent is 60 years and the second respondent superanuated the petitioners at the age of 58 years. THE said reduction of age by the second respondent from 60 years to 58 years was made without issuing any notice under section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act to alter the service conditions. According to the petitioner, the Conciliation Officer viz. the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), submitted failure report on 26.5.2005 with regard to the disputes raised by the petitioners and the first respondent has not referred the matter to the Labour Court and therefore these writ petitions are filed.

(3.) LET us first consider the decisions relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. (a) In the first decision reported in 1987 (1) LLJ 209 (V.Veerarajan and others v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others) the Honourable Supreme Court held that if the dispute in question raises a question of law the appropriate Government should not purport to reach a final conclusion on the said question of law because that would normally lie within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal. Similarly, on disputed question of fact, the appropriate Government cannot purport to reach final conclusions for that again would be the province of the Industrial Tribunal. (b) In 1991 Supp (2) SCC 10 (Dhanbad Colliery Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India) in paragraph 3, the Supreme Court held as under,