JAILAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order declining to refer the industrial dispute for determination by the labour court reads as follows:-

(2.) The reference has been declined by breaching all canons of industrial law and judicial precedents on the point long established that the appropriate government is merely a post office in referring industrial disputes to the area Labour Court for adjudication on merits. In this process, the appropriate government cannot don the robes of the court and decline reference on the ground that the termination took place in terms of the appointment letter. The second reason to decline the reference is equally bad, that the management is still willing to take back the workman in service without back wages for the intervening period but the petitioner was not willing to join. Both these reasons are irrelevant to the consideration in making reference under section 10 (1) (c) read with section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act"). The impugned order is declared per se illegal an unsustainable. No arguments are required to be addressed on the grievance of the petitioning workman that he has been grossly wronged by the State in declining reference on the flimsiest of grounds.

(3.) The writ petition is allowed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order. Had this matter been decided prior to amendment of Section 2-A of the Act, this Court would have directed the appropriate Government to make a reference to the area Labour Court or consider doing so. However, with the change of law the conditions prescribed in the amended SubSection 2 of Section 2-A have come into force and deserve to be applied in order to save further loss of time. The petitioner is given the liberty to approach the area Labour Court at Faridabad, Haryana directly by presenting his statement of claim. On claim being presented within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the Labour Court will issue process to the opposite party to appear by numbering the reference and thereafter would proceed to conduct the trial on the issue whether the termination of the services of the workman is illegal and unjustified, and if not, to what relief the workman is entitled to? The Labour Court is free to strike issues, in case it deems it fit for its convenience in returning findings on the issues arising on the pleadings received. The dispute being a grossly old and the fact that it has taken 22 years for this matter to be decided, the Labour Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the trial and make a serious endeavour to conclude the matter preferably within one year from the date when parties are called upon to produce their evidence. The labour court will be cautious and extremely careful in granting adjournments and preferably none be given and therefore a schedule of milestones in the conduct of the trial from start to finish be listed in the shape of a time table/calendar by fixing day and event in advance as recommended for civil suits by the Supreme Court in Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmila Devi, 2011 8 SCC 249 designing for good measure in para.52 & 53 a salutary procedure as follows:-