O P GAUBA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Shri O. P. Gauba, petitioner, challenges three orders passed by the State of Haryana, respondent No. 1, dated December 6, 1985, July 19, 1986, and January 12, 1987, annexures P-12, P-13 and P-15, respectively, and prays for a Writ of Mandamus directing respondent No. 1, State of Haryana, to make a reference of the Industrial Dispute to the appropriate forum.

(2.) THE petitioner, O. P. Gauba, was employed with respondent No. 2, Kelvinator of India Ltd. , at Ballabgarh, Haryana. His services having been terminated, he approached the State of Haryana, respondent No. 1, for making reference of the industrial dispute relating to his dismissal from service to the Labour Court/tribunal for adjudication. This was done after conciliation proceedings failed. Vide order annexure P-12, reference was declined by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Haryana, Labour Department. It would be useful to reproduce the same as the question debated relates to it: "on the subject cited above that you are hereby informed that the Government does not feel fit to send your case for adjudication in the Court of law. From the perusal of file it is found that your demand letter is baseless and without substance. On the perusal of previous record and the serious charges levelled against you which were proved against you in accordance with law, hence your services are terminated by the management". It was, thereafter, that the petitioner again approached the State Government, vide his two representations which were declined.

(3.) ALTHOUGH in the main Writ Petition certain allegations of mala fides have been leveled against the officers of the respondent- company and it is also alleged that the enquiry conducted against him was not fair on the grounds mentioned in his demand notice, annexures P-10 and P-11, and in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, the company, these allegations have been refuted and the stand taken by the respondents has been sought to be justified, it is not necessary to refer to the same as these matters are required to be adjudicated upon by the Labour Court as and when the dispute is referred.