SURAJ BHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the order passed by the appropriate Government, dated 6/03/1992, vide which the industrial dispute sought to be raised by the workman within the purview of Section 10(1 )(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was declined. The impugned order reads as under:

(2.) According to the petitioner he was initially appointed as Beldar on daily wages in January, 1983 at Kaithal in the Irrigation Branch and continued to work there till 1/03/1984 when he was appointed in the regular pay-scale. He worked to the satisfaction of all concerned and was also granted annual increments for the years 1985 and 1986. Thereafter the petitioner was transferred to Narwana Sub-Division in 1986 and service book of the petitioner was also transferred. He worked there for two months but was not allowed to work after 17/07/1986. The matter was dealt with by the Conciliation Officer. However, he filed the papers on 29/11/1987. Thereafter the petitioner served a demand notice on 1/10/1999. According to the petitioner he had been approaching the respondents for granting him the employment but of no consequence. In reply to the demand notice, written statement was filed on behalf of the department in which it was stated that the petitioner had left the job of his own accord and no claim of the petitioner was pending. The petitioner contested the said issue, but the appropriate Government vide order, dated 6/03/1992, declined to make reference in furtherance to the demand notice served by the petitioner and rejected the request vide the impugned order. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is contrary to the law inasmuch as merely on the ground of delay the appropriate Government could not have declined to make the reference in terms of Section 10(1 )(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. For this he relies upon the case of Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum- Processing Service Society Ltd. and another AIR 1999 SC 1351 : 1999 (6) SCC 82 : 1999-I-LLJ-1260 and also to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rohtash v. State of Haryana and others (C.W.P. No 2936 of 2002, decided on March 7, 2002). Further it is contended that the appropriate Government has in fact determined the dispute on merits in holding that the workman has left the service at his own, which jurisdiction is not vested in the appropriate Government in terms of a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Om Prakash v. State of Haryana and another 1994 (1) LLN 799.