RAM SEWAK Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for commanding the respondent No. 1, the Union of India, to reconsider and refer the dispute for adjudication and to pass any other order as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.

(2.) The facts as have been uncurtained are that the petitioner was working as a casual labourer at Itarsi under the Railway Administration. He was appointed in the year 1986 and after completing six months service he attained the status of daily rated casual employee with effect from 18.11.1986 and was put in the scale of pay of Rs. 750-940. Thereafter he was working in the Railway from time to time and in the year 1989 his services were terminated without holding any inquiry in gross violation of principles of natural justice. As the termination amounted to retrenchment as there was non-compliance of statutory provisions of Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhopal who initiated the proceeding of conciliation. However, as no settlement could be arrived at between the parties the Conciliation Officer recorded failure of conciliation and forwarded the same to the appropriate Government, the respondent No. 1 on 19th Dec., 1996 vide Annexure P-1. Though the failure report was sent in the month of Dec., 1996 the respondent No. 1 did not take any action as a consequence of which the petitioner was constrained to approach this court in writ petition No. 4774/98 praying for necessary direction to be issued to the respondent No. 1 to take steps as contemplated under Sec. 12 of the Act for referring the dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal or Labour Court as the case may be. This Court by order dated 28.10.1998 directed the respondent No. 1 to pass appropriate orders on the failure submitted by the Conciliation Officer within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order passed in the writ petition. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 by Annexure P-4 dated 17.8.1999 has refused to refer the dispute on the ground that the dispute was raised belatedly without any justifiable ground. Quashment of the said order has been sought in the present writ petition.

(3.) It is averred in the writ petition that the respondent No. 1 has failed to appreciate that the delay has been caused by the respondent No. 1 in taking action and the petitioner's case cannot be rejected on that ground. It is also put forth that the respondent No. 1 is under a statutory obligation to consider the matter fairly and reasonably and is not entitled under law to pass an arbitrary order which prima facie would negative the claim of a workman. It is further put forth that the order of refusal has been passed on irrelevant consideration and, therefore, is unsustainable.