M R JOSEPH Vs. GOVT OF INDIA; OFFICE OF DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL); CONTROLLING AUTHORITY; NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LTD ; OFFICE OF ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order passed by the first respondent, dated 22.01.2015, for a consequential direction to the first respondent to refer the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (CGIT) for adjudication.

(2.) The petitioner who was an employee of the Neyveli Lignite Corporation (NLC) was removed from service by order dated 30.01.2002. The petitioner's case is that after removal from service, he had been regularly making representations requesting for reinstatement and he raised a dispute on 26.03.2009, before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chennai, against the order removing him from service. The petitioner is also said to have raised a dispute on 29.06.2009, before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act by filing an application in Form N. The industrial dispute raised by the petitioner against his removal from service ended in failure and it is stated that failure report was submitted to the Central Government and the dispute has not been referred to the Tribunal for adjudication. It is stated that the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act passed an order on 30.07.2010, that the petitioner is entitled to payment of Gratuity amount of Rs.2,28,498/- together with interest.

(3.) The petitioner taking a clue from the observations made by the Controlling Authority with regard to the charge of bigamy against the petitioner, raised a dispute before the conciliation officer questioning his removal which ended in failure and the Government by order dated 13.12.2011, declined to refer the matter for adjudication on the ground, it has been raised belatedly without any justification for such delay and it is not a case fit for adjudication. The petitioner sent a representation, dated 17.08.2012 to the first respondent to refer the dispute to the industrial Tribunal for which, there was no reply and he filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.26443 of 2014, which was disposed of by order dated 08.10.2014, to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law after issuing notice to the petitioner and conducting an enquiry, pursuant to which the impugned order was passed. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order contending that it is not in consonance with the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.26443 of 2014, dated 08.10.2014, as no notice was issued to the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted before the impugned order was passed. It is therefore, submitted that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner relied upon the decision in the case of Ajaib Singh vs. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Limited and Anr., 1999 6 SCC 82 and Sapan Kumar Pandit vs. U.P. State Electricity Board & Ors., 2001 6 SCC 222.