P BALASUBRAMANIAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Order of the Government refusing to refer the issue of the nonemployment of the petitioner for adjudication to the Labour Court is challenged in this writ petition. At all material times the petitioner was employed as a ledger clerk in the Administration Department of M/s Spencer and Company, Madras, for over 20 years-While so, by an order dated 30-6-1975, the management dismissed him from service for alleged theft of 6 cakes valued Rs. 6.

(2.) ON 14-7-1975 the petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2a of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the "act"; before the conciliation officer. The conciliation failed and the conciliation officer duly submitted his report to the Government on 29-3-1976. This was followed by G. O. Rt. No. 1431 dated 28-6-1976 by which the Government declined to refer the disputes for adjudication. The Government found that the petitioner had been given ample opportunity in the domestic enquiry and that the guilt had been proved. Lastly, the petitioner on 12-7-1976 submitted his representations to the Governor of Tamil Nadu, finally to re-consider the earlier order dated 28-6-1976. This writ petition is filed to quash the first order of the Government dated 28-6-1976 refusing to make a reference.

(3.) MR. N. G. R. Prasad on behalf of the petitioner-puts his case in a narrow compass. He submits that Section 11a. after its introduction into the Act vested powers on the Labour Court to modify the quantum of punishment if it was found that the punishment imposed by the management was very severe in cases where the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the termination of service was proper. In view of this Mr. Prasad submits that in deciding whether a dispute should be referred for adjudication to the Lobour Court or not, the Government should also bear in mind the nature of the punishment inflicted by the management in a particular case. The failure to have regard to the seriousness of the punishment inflicted compared to the trivial nature of the offence will amount to an omission of relevant considerations and such circumstances will confer jurisdiction on this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in interfering with the order of the Government declining to make a reference. The learned Counsel would rely upon my judgment in W. P. No. 847 of 1977 K. Ramaswamy v. Government of Tamil Nadu, Labour and Employment, Madras and Ors. dated 10-7-79 since reported in 1979 II-L. L. J. 304 wherein I have taken the view that the nature of the punishment inflicted on. 1 worker will be a relevant consideration to be borne in mind by the Government at the time of making an order under Section 10 (1) of the Act,