S GOPAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE aggrieved alleged workman whose request to refer the dispute between himself and his employer, the 2nd respondent, was turned down by the 1st respondent, Government is the petitioner. In this proceeding, he seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of a certiorarified mandamus after calling for all the connected records from the 1st respondent pertaining to the passing of the G.O.Ms. No.817 dated 2.4.1980 and the orders rejecting the review petitions made in Letter No.44010/122/82 dated 25.8.1982 and Letter No.13916/R2/83-l dated 23.3.1983 and to quash the said G.O. and orders, consequently directing the 1st respondent to refer the non-employment of the petitioner under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (herein referred to as the Act).

(2.) SECTION 10 of the Act provides that-

(3.) IT may not be out of place to point out that in his petition before the Conciliation Officer, the petitioner has made reference to his initial appointment as learner on 20.12.1974, he being subsequently put on probation from 1.1.1978 and the probation being extended by another six months. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that in such cases, though the petitioner is a probationer, he will be a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act. Though the Government is the exclusive authority to decide one way or the other, yet it owes a duty in law to consider all the circumstances and then pass an order under section 10.