MEHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner avers that he was appointed as Chawkidar vide resolution dated February 17, 1990 passed by the Co-operative Society (Respondent No. 2 ). His services were terminated vide order dated June 18, 1990. Aggrieved by this action, the petitioner served a notice of demand dated February 26, 1991 praying for his reinstatement with full back wages. Vide order dated January 14, 1992, the State Government declined the petitioner's request for a reference of the matter to the Labour Court. The petitioner's application for reconsideration of the matter having met the same fate, he has approached this Court through the present writ petition. The action of the State Government in refusing to make a reference under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been challenged on the ground that it has been passed on irrelevant and extraneous considerations.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. U. S. Sahni, learned Counsel for the petitioner. He contends that the State Government had no jurisdiction to refuse to refer the matter to the Labour Court. It could not have gone into the merits of the controversy and had to refer the industrial dispute to the Labour Court.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Government on January 14, 1992 shows that the State Government had formed an opinion that it was not a fit case "to be referred for adjudication to Labour Court because on enquiry it has been found that your employment in the above organisation is only for 4 months". Did the State Government err in doing so?