BHAKRA MANAGEMENT BOARD Vs. RAGPAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated February 15, 1979, allowing the present writ petition and directing the Government of India, Ministry of Irrigation and Power, New Delhi, to refer the dispute raised by Ragpat Ram workman, to a competent Tribunal.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that Ragpat Ram joined as Work Ministry at Bhakra on 13th of June 1956. He was retrenched from service by the Bhakra Management Board Irrigation Wing, Nangal Township on 27th of August, 1970. The representation made by Ragpat Ram for his reinstatement with full back wages was referred to the Assistant Labour Commissioner by the authorities. The parties appeared before the said Commissioner who submitted his report to Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation (Department of Labour), New Delhi, to the effect that there could be no conciliation between the parties. Ragpat Ram represented to the Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation, New Delhi for referring the matter to the labour Ministry to the Irrigation and Power ministry to refer the mater to the Labour Court to raise the industrial dispute but the request was declined by the latter Ministry. In this situation, Ragpat Ram filed the present petition for issuence of a writ of mandamus to make a reference of industrial dispute to the appropriate Tribunal.

(3.) Before proceeding further, the law on the subject under consideration, laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court may be mentioned with advantage. In Prem Kakar v. State of Haryana and another, 1976 AIR(SC) 1474, the government declined to refer the case to the Labour Court on the ground that the government was of the view that the person seeking the reference was not covered by the definition of the term 'workmen' given in the Industrial Dispute Act. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court rejected the contention of the learned counsel for the aggrieved person that the question whether he was a 'workman' or not, being a disputed question of fact and law, could be decided only by an appropriate labour Court. Hence, the prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus to make a reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act was declined by their Lordships. In this authority, the case of Bombay Union of Journalists v. The State of Bombay, 1964 AIR(SC) 1617, was relied on, wherein it was held that in entertaining an application for a writ of mandemus against an application for a writ of mandemus against an order made by an appropriate government under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, the Court does not sit in appeal over the order and is not entitled to consider the property or the satisfactory character of the reasons given by the government.