GOPAL DAS DAGA Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was employed with the Central Bank of India, Raipur as sub-accountant His services were terminated on November 22, 1988. He approached this Court earlier in writ petition, Misc. Petition No. 2769 of 1989 but withdrew it on August 23, 1989 with liberty to raise an industrial dispute. Thereafter, he approached the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Raipur, for conciliation proceedings. The conciliation failed. The failure report is Annexure B dated January 29, 1990. The management of the Central Bank of India did not agree taking a plea that there was no merit in the case of the petitioner. The failure report was submitted to the Union of India for a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By the impugned communication dated September 10, 1990 (Annexure C), the Union of India, department of labour, refused to make a reference communicating reasons for: refusal as under: "it appears that Shri Gopal Das Daga was working as an officer of the Bank discharging supervisory duties. He is, therefore not a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (g) of the Industrial Disputes Act. (correct section should have been Section 2 (s) of the Act ). "

(2.) BY this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the impugned communication (Annexure C) of the Union of India refusing to make reference of the industrial dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner assails the communication of refusal contending that whether the petitioner falls within a definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is a question for adjudication by the Tribunal and the concerned authority of the Union of India has out stepped its jurisdiction in recording the finding that the petitioner was not a workman and refusing reference on that ground. Reliance is placed on decisions of the Supreme Court in Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab (1984-II-LLJ-396) and S. K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra (1983-II-LJJ-429) as also on Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh v. State of Bihar (1989-II-LLJ-558 ).