GAYA PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ to quash the communication Annexure P-3, by which the Central Government has communicated that it has not referred the Industrial Dispute as the petitioner has not substantiated his arguments with documentary evidence and that he has not worked for more than 420 days in 12 consecutive months. According to the petitioner, he was employed as MRCL Khalasi under the management of respondent No. 2 and posted in the office of Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Jabalpur. The petitioner entered the service on 13/06/1986 as casual labour and worked upto 30/06/1994 continuously. According to the petitioner, he acquired the status of temporary workman after completion of 240 days continuous service and his service could not have been terminated without following the procedure prescribed therefor, but the respondent No. 2, without following the Regulations, terminated his service from 1/07/1994. The petitioner, therefore, approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), who, on finding that there was failure of conciliation, reported the matter to the Central Government by letter dated 20/03/1997 (Annexure P-2). The Central Government, instead of referring the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, declined vide Annexure P-3 on the ground that

(2.) Short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the Central Government could have refused to refer the dispute on the ground that the petitioner has not substantiated his arguments with documentary evidence and that he had not worked for more than 240 days (sic) in 12 consecutive months. It is clear from the averments made by the petitioner that he has stated that he had worked in the establishment from 13/06/1986 to June 30, 1994 4 continuously and, therefore, this statement, by itself, prima facie, indicated that he had worked for more than 240 days in 12 consecutive months. This was again a matter which could have been decided by the Tribunal on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. The Central Government could not have undertaken adjudication of the disputed facts. In my considered view, the Central Government erred in undertaking adjudication of disputed facts and that too without any opportunity to the parties to substantiate the same. The order Annexure P-3 cannot, therefore stand and is, accordingly, quashed.

(3.) In the result, this petition is allowed, Respondent No. 1 is directed to refer the dispute in accordance with law within 3 months from the receipt of this order.