ALEKH BIHARI ROUT Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOLE point that arises for consideration in this writ application is whether refusal to refer a dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal is proper. The grounds for refusal were that petitioner had not completed more than 240 days of continuous service in any calendar year, and on the basis of written test and interview conducted on February 24, 1991 and March 27, 1991 respectively. Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'employer'), had prepared a panel list of 27 candidates on the basis of merit and petitioner was not included in the panel list. Additionally it was noted that 5 candidates have come to this Court in OJC No. 695 of 1994, and therefore, matter was subjudice and there was likelihood of decision of the said writ application affecting all empanelled candidates. Impugned order was passed in purported exercise of power under Section 12 (5) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the 'act' ).

(2.) PETITIONER's case is that he has been illegally kept out of employment and a grievance was lodged before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bhubaneswar who submitted a failure conciliation report. On consideration of the same, Government of India in the Ministry of Labour by the impugned order dated September 25, 1995 (Annexure-5) refused to refer the matter for adjudication as noted above.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner submitted that approach of the authority is erroneous. It has failed to exercise its jurisdiction conferred in law by prejudging several issues. Further, conclusions were not factually correct, and OJC No. 695 of 1994 has no nexus with the present dispute. Learned counsel for employer submitted that concerned Government is not bound to make a reference and can weed out frivolous claims and disputes giving colour of industrial dispute and on being satisfied that dispute raised is not an industrial dispute, refusal to make a reference can be made.