SUKHJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was allegedly working as a Conductor with respondent No. 2, had averred that his services had been terminated on 8th September, 1990 without any notice or inquiry and without the payment of any retrenchment compensation although he had put in nine years of service. Aggrieved by the action of respondent No. 2, the petitioner filed a representation before him with a copy addressed to the Labour Inspector Grade-I, Ferozepur, and made a request that he be put back in service. As no action was taken on his request, the petitioner served a demand notice under section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act on respondent No. 2 with a copy to the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Ferozepur. He also submitted his written comments (Annexures P-3) before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Ferozepur. As no solution could be found by the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Ferozepur, the matter was referred to respondent No. 1 who vide order, dated 12.11.1991 (Annexure P-4) declined to refer the matter for adjudication of the Labour Court on the ground that the petitioner had not been able to prove that he had been an employee of respondent No. 2. The petitioner thereafter moved various representations appending more evidence to show his relationship with respondent No. 2 but these representations were also rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) The solitary contention of Mr. Harinder Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the appropriate authority had gone into the merits of the controversy and had given a judicial finding that the matter could not be referred to the Labour Court as the petitioner had not been able to show even prima facie that he had been employed with respondent No. 2 and that such a finding could not be recorded by the appropriate government which had only an administrative function. In support of his assertion, reliance has been placed by Mr. Sharma on Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and another v. State of Bihar and others, 1989 AIR(SC) 1565 As against this, Mr. I.S. Saggu, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, has argued that there was no evidence on the record to indicate that the petitioner had been employed as a Conductor and that in support of his assertion that he had been working for nine years, he had not been able to produce any documentary evidence.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the impugned orders in the present proceedings cannot be sustained. It has been pointed out by Mr. Harinder Sharma with reference to annexures P-5 and P-7 which are the petitioner's representations to the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, that certain documents had been filed before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Ferozepur, which do prima facie indicate that he had been employed with respondent No. 2. Annexures P-5 and P-7 show that the petitioner had supplied the documents showing his relationship as an employee of respondent No. 2, but in letters (Annexure P-6 and P-9) no reference has been made to any evidence that had been produced by a the petitioner before the various authorities, including the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Ferozepur. As is evident from the cited case, a finding that the petitioner was not an employee of the management had to be recorded by the Labour Court and that court alone could go into the merits of the controversy.