IRFAN AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Personal Manager of Geep Industrial Syndicate, the respondent No. 5 terminated the services of 33 workmen and the attempt to get the dispute arising therefrom to be referred under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, was refused only stating the ground for refusal that the said dispute does not come within the definition of Industrial Disputes Act as per Sections 2 (e) and 2(z) of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. Challenging the aforesaid two orders this writ petition was filed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order refusing reference is illegal as the concerned authority entered into the merits of the dispute although he is not entitled to do so. It is contended that under the relevant provisions for, reference under Section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, the authority concerned was only to come to a finding as to whether there was any dispute existing or apprehended and nothing else and therefore the impugned order is bad in law.

(3.) Learned standing counsel as also Mr. V. R. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent-employer contended that while finding existence of any dispute In the industry, a finding has to be arrived at as to whether the establishment concerned is an industry or not and the employee concerned is workman or not within the meaning of Section 2 (z) of the said Act. In support of such contention on behalf of the employer reference was made to the case of Miss. A Sundarantbala v. Government of Goo, Daman & Diu and others, 1983 (II)LLJ 491, wherein the Bombay High Court has held that if the appropriate Government is of the opinion that the dispute is not concerning workman, it may refuse to refer the dispute. Reference was also made to the case of Hypower Mazdoor Welfare Union v. Secretary and Commissioner, Social and Welfare Department, Bangalore and another, 1996 Lab 1C 107, decided by Karnataka High Court holding that the Government is not to act mechanically or like a post office or a conveyor belt and refer every case for adjudication in which conciliation has failed and it has to apply its mind and to come to a conclusion on the question of propriety of making a reference.