S. RAGHU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner is directed against the Proceedings No. L-12012/13/2006-IR (B-II), dated 28.6.2006, of the 1st respondent, Union of India, refusing to refer the industrial dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, Bank of India, to the Labour Court as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to refer the said dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court.

(2.) I have heard the submissions of Sri P.B. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. There is no representation for the 1st respondent as well as respondents 3 and 4. I have perused the material record.

(3.) The facts, which are necessary to be stated as a prelude to this order, in brief, are as follows: "The 3rd respondent/Bank is a Government of India enterprise. The petitioner was appointed, in the month of Nov., 1990, as a cooli on daily wages, in the office of the 4th respondent, Branch Manager, Bank of India, Regional Collection Centre, Secunderabad; and since then, he has been engaged for more than 20 days in a month. Though the petitioner was appointed as a coolie, he has been discharging the duties of an Attender in the 3rd respondent Bank. Hence, he filed W.P.No.11291 of 1994 seeking a direction to regularise his services as Attender in the respondent Bank. Later, he had withdrawn the said writ petition on the assurance of the Workman Union that they would recommend his case for regularization to the 3rd respondent Bank. Even after repeated persuasion by the Union for regularization of services of the petitioner, the respondent Bank terminated his services, with effect from 27.9.1994. Then, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent, The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Vidyanagar, Hyderabad, and raised a dispute and requested to intervene in the matter. The respondent Bank also filed objections. The 2nd respondent admitted the case of the petitioner for conciliation. Thereafter, as the conciliation failed before the 2nd respondent, the employees Union espoused the case of the petitioner and represented to refer the dispute to the Labour Court under Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The 2nd respondent submitted failure report to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent passed orders on the said report by proceedings No. L- 12012/13/2006-IR (B-II) dated 28.6.2006 by stating that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for adjudication on the ground of delay in raising the dispute. The 1st respondent ought not to have adjudicated the dispute on merits. When the process of conciliation failed before the 2nd respondent, he submitted his failure report to the 1st respondent; and, the 1st respondent instead of taking action within the ambit of powers contemplated under the provisions of Sec. 10 of the Act, passed the impugned order contrary to the said provision. The 1st respondent ought not to have decided the matter on merits and on the ground of delay, which is beyond the purview of the 1st respondent. The powers of the 1st respondent are only to make a reference to the Labour Court concerned for adjudication of the dispute raised. Apart from that, as per Sec. 25-H of the Act, the petitioner's case is entitled for consideration by the 1st respondent; however, the 1st respondent erroneously refused to refer the dispute to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. The 1st respondent while discharging the functions contemplated under Sec. 10 of the Act is not a judicial Tribunal. The 1st respondent being a referral authority should not have delved into the merits of the matter, which function is exclusively within the domain of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. The delay itself cannot be a ground to deny the matter being referred to the Labour Court as the dispute raised is an industrial dispute. Hence, the writ petition is filed.