PARTAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the communication dated September 9, 1993 received by the petitioner from the Joint Secretary, Government of Haryana, Labour Department, informing him that the industrial dispute sought to be raised by him was not being referred for adjudication. The petitioner was also informed that on an enquiry made by the State Government it was revealed that his services had been terminated for misconduct which stood proved in a domestic enquiry conducted by his employer and, therefore, the termination was valid.

(2.) IT is common case of the parties that the services of the petitioner -workman were terminated on account of misconduct and the employer claims to have held a domestic enquiry in which the charges levelled against the workman were proved.

(3.) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the State Government declining to make the reference quashed. The State Government is directed to refer the dispute for adjudication to an appropriate authority within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Parties are left to bear their own costs.