S ARUMUGAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Art. 226 of the constitution of India is for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the first respondent, Government of Tamil Nadu, to reconsider the decision contained in G. O. Rt. No. 1397 Labour and employment Department, dated 24-6-1976 declining to make a reference under S. 10 (1)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner had joined service under the second respondent, the management of Tamil Nadu industrial Development Corporation Ltd. , madras as Time Keeper on 9-5-1968 and was subsequently promoted as Assistant. The second respondent issued a memo dated 26-4-1974 to the petitioner charging him with having made false claim for travelling allowance for journey by the second class from Madras to Erode whereas he had actually travelled only by third class. Later another memo dated 30-4-1974 was issued to the petitioner alleging that in the medical bill, the consultation charges, cost of medicines, and fee paid for house visits made by the Doctor were illegally included. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 21-5-1974 denying both the charges. There was a domestic enquiry on 11-7-1974, 15-7-1974 and 17-7-1974 and the petitioner was found guilty on 22-7-1974 of all the charges and he was dismissed from service on 29-7-1974 in pursuance of that finding. Thereupon he approached the conciliation officer for raising an industrial dispute on 12-8-1974. The second respondent was called upon to offer his remarks on the petitioner's application and he did so. The conciliation officer submitted a failure report on 3-3-1975. It is seen from the records that in the report the conciliation officer, (Labour officer, II Madras) has stated :

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that the Committee mentioned in paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition consisting of the Managing Director of the second respondent, Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department, Secretary to government, Industries Department, and the commissioner of Labour discussed the matter on 15-6-1976 and the Committee consisting of the Managing Director of the second respondent objected to his case being referred for adjudication, and that this extraneous consideration has weighed with the Government in declining to make a reference. The petitioner's further case is that in view of S. 11a of the Industrial Disputes Act, the first respondent, the Government of Tamil Nadu has no option but to refer the dispute for adjudication.

(3.) THE second respondent has not filed any counter-affidavit but he was represented by counsel in Court. The first respondent contends that the Committee is for deciding whether disputes in Government undertakings and public sector undertakings had to be referred or they could be settled amicably and that they have passed the impugned order after considering the case with the help of the Committee and also on the basis of the facts made available to them as well as on the basis of the report of the Labour Officer. They also contended that S. 11a will not entitle the petitioner to have a reference made as of right.