DINESH PRATAP SINGH Vs. REGIONAL DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was an employee of respondent, is aggrieved by the order dated 18th November, 1986 and 24th January, 1992 and 20th February, 1993 whereby the State Government has not referred the dispute under the provisions of Section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication before the labour court concerned. Against these orders, the petitioner filed the writ petition before this Hon'ble Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17367 of 1993. A learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petition by the judgment and order dated 10th May, 1993. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge the petitioner preferred a Special Appeal being special appeal No. 409 of 1993. This special appeal was allowed and the judgment of the learned single Judge was set aside. In the aforesaid special appeal, this Court issued the following direction :

(2.) Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the matter was again remitted back to the authority under the mechanism of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act for making reference, i.e., Conciliation Officer, who has already submitted a report before the matter came to this Court that there exists no industrial dispute between the parties and he, therefore, referred the matter to the delegatee of the State Government, i.e., the Deputy Labour Commissioner. The Deputy Labour Commissioner by order dated 31st October, 1996, which is impugned in the present writ petition, has given reasons by holding that there does not exist any industrial dispute which may warrant interference under Section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. Now the present writ petition is filed against the order dated 31st October, 1996, which has been annexed as Annexure-15 to the writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Padia submitted that firstly the order has not been passed by the State Government and it has been passed by the Deputy Director Labour Commissioner and secondly, that before passing of the aforesaid order dated 31st October, 1996, the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity to establish that there exists industrial dispute between the parties. In order to appreciate this argument from the scheme of the Act, the documents filed as Annexures-C.A. 1, C.A. 2 and C.A. 3 to the counter-affidavit also required to be perused. Annexure-C.A. 2 is the order of appointment of the petitioner which stipulates the terms and conditions which are reproduced below :