D R SEHGAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as an Accounts Assistant with respondent No. 2 when on the ground of misconduct and after due enquiry, his services were terminated vide order dated June 14, 1978 (Annexure P-9). The petitioner thereafter served a demand notice (Annexure P-10) and that bearing no fruit, the Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report to the appropriate Government which vide Annexure P-11 declined to refer the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication on the ground that the Government did not consider the case to be a fit one for decision from the Labour Tribunal because the services of the petitioner had been terminated after he had been found guilty in the domestic enquiry. Dis-satisfied with the order annexure P-11, the petitioner made a representation to the Labour Department but this too, was declined vide annexure P.13. Annexures P-11 and P-13 have been impugned before me.

(2.) The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was not for the appropriate Government acting under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the 'Act') to go into the merits of the controversy as the action of the appropriate Government was purely administrative in nature and a finding that the petitioner had been dismissed from service after proper enquiry, was a matter for the Labour Court alone to determine. Reliance for this position has been placed on Veerarajan and others v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, 1987 AIR(SC) 695, Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and another v. State of Bihar and others, 1989 AIR(SC) 1565 and a single Bench decision rendered by me and reported as Ishwar Singh v. The State of Haryana and others, 1992 1 SCT 204 . There is merit in the argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh's case , it was held as under :-

(3.) In view of what has been held above, this writ petition is allowed, Annexures P-11 and P-13 are quashed and a direction is issued (as in Veerarajan's case to the effect that a reference be made by respondent No. 1 within a period of one month from the date a copy of this order is made available to it. It is also directed (as the dispute between the parties relates to the year 1978) that the Labour Court shall dispose of the matter within a period of six months after the reference is made. The costs of the petition which will be paid by respondent No. 1 alone, are determined at Rs. 2000/-.