DEEP NARAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 03.11.2011 (Annexure P12) whereby respondent No. 1 has declined to refer the industrial dispute raised by the demand notice dated 25.09.2007 to the Labour Court for adjudication. Further prayer has been made that respondent No. 1 be directed to refer the demand notice for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act') inter alia apart from the prayer for payment of compensation on account of closure of the unit. A perusal of the paper -book would go on to show that an initial demand notice was sent by the workmen, who are 6 in number, on 28.08.2007 (Annexure P2), which is alleged not to have been served upon respondent No. 5 Thereafter, notice of closure dated 19.09.2007 (Annexure P3), was pasted on the notice board that the manufacturing activities were closed down, with immediate effect, and the services of 17 workmen were not required on the next day. The petitioner -workmen, on 25.09.2007, again sent a demand notice against the illegal closure which was replied by the respondent -Industry (Annexure P5). Thereafter, on 05.08.2008, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ambala addressed a letter to the Labour Commissioner, Haryana, informing that the unit had been closed and that the Management had paid all the dues to the workmen, giving the details of payment made to 17 workmen. Thereafter, it seems that the impugned order dated 03.11.2011 was passed on the ground that the said industry had been closed which had been verified and the dues had been paid to the workmen before the Deputy Labour Commissioner on 16.08.2008 and accordingly, the demand notice was filed. The impugned order reads as under:

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has contended that under Section 25FFF of the Act, if an industry is closed down, the workman is entitled for his dues, as per the provisions of the said section and therefore, the dispute was rightly raised and it was not an administrative function, which the State Government could take over and the same was a judicial function of the Labour Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is not justifiable. It is, now, settled position of law that the Government cannot make its own assessment to decide the reasonableness of the demands on merits. A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in The M.P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh v. The State of M.P. & another : 1985 (2) SCC 103 held that it is within the domain of the appropriate Tribunals to decide an adjudicatory process and it is not within the domain of the Government which has only to prima facie see the demand. The Government should be very slow to attempt an examination of the demand and decline the same and the Courts should always be vigilant when the Government attempts to usurp the powers of the Court. Relevant observations read as under: