SADHU SINGH Vs. LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SODHU Singh, petitioner, was employed as a conductor with the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and after he had worked for a little more than one year, his services were allegedly terminated on 15th July, 1976. He raised an industrial dispute by serving a demand notice, dated August 11, 1976, on the management under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as the Act ). On receipt of the demand notice the Conciliation Officer took cognizance of the dispute between the petitioner and the management and started conciliation proceedings. The management took the stand that the petitioner had voluntarily resigned from the job and his services were never terminated as alleged by him. The Conciliation Officer, after perusing the original record and hearing the parties, could not bring about a settlement and must have sent his failure report to the State Government setting forth the steps taken by him for ascertaining the facts and circumstances relating to the dispute and for bringing about a settlement thereof together with a full statement of such facts and circumstances and reasons on account of which, in his opinion, a settlement could not be arrived at. On a consideration of the failure report, demand notice and other relevant material, the State Government, as per its order, dated 27th January, 1977, declined to refer the dispute for adjudication and a communication to this effect was sent to the petitioner on behalf of the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, exercising the powers of the State Government under the Act. It is this communication which has been impugned in the present writ petition.

(2.) AFTER the communication, dated January 27, 1977, the petitioner kept quiet for eight years and it was on 30th January 1985, that he represented to the State Government regarding the rejection of the reference which he had sought by serving the demand notice, dated 11th August 1976. This representation was also rejected and the petitioner was sent a communication dated March 4, 1985, in this regard. It was at this stage that the present writ petition was filed challenging the order of the Government, dated 27th January 1977, declining the reference.

(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Government while declining the reference could not opine as to whether the resignation put up by the management was under duress or not artd since the State Government had adjudicated upon the matter, the order of the State Government was liable to be struck down. In support of her contention, she relied upon Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Karmachari Sangh v. State of Madhya Pradesh : 1985. I LLJ 519.