MANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the challenge is to order, Annexure P.2 dated 30.9.1992 whereby the appropriate Government declined to make a reference to the Labour Court mainly on the ground that the petitioner was not a workman. The petitioner joined respondent No. 3 as a Foreman on 1.5.1982 and his case is that his service was illegally terminated on 12.3.1992. He made a complaint to the Labour Inspector on 17.3.1992 which was followed by a demand notice dated 29.4.1992. The appropriate Government declined to make a reference as aforesaid. Hence this petition.

(2.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the employer, namely respondent No. 3, the earlier plea that the petitioner was not a workman was not taken. Instead the plea taken was that the petitioner had abandoned the job in 1990 and had started his own business in the name and style of Raymond Hydraulics (Engg.) Works, 17, Basant Nagar, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar of which the petitioner was the sole proprietor. In the replication, the petitioner has categorically and specifically denied having abandoned the job or having started his own business as alleged by the management. The facts set out show that a disputed question arose and it is settled law that the appropriate Government cannot adjudicate upon the merits of the dispute between the workman and the management. The role to be played by the appropriate Government is to see whether a dispute exists between the parties.