AZAD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only grievance made by the learned counsel for the respondents is that since the Government has applied its mind and. found prima facie that the enquiry held was valid therefore, neither any labour dispute survives nor it can be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. In support of his contention learned counsel for the respondents relied upon Mehar Singh v. The State of Haryana and Anr. 1993 (2) PLR 77 and Bombay Union of Journalists and Others v. The State of Bombay and another, 1964-I-LLJ-351.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the State has no jurisdiction to determine the dispute on merits. In the case in hand the reference has been declined and it would be expedient to reproduce the order declining the reference which reads as under:

(3.) IN our considered view, we find no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents. It has been specifically laid down in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent that the disputes which can be declined to be referred to the Labour Court are those disputes where State has come to a conclusion that it is frivolous or is belated etc. It has been specifically laid down in the judgments that the Government cannot enter into merits or demerits of the dispute. In case the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the State has to prima facie go into the merits of the dispute, is taken to be correct, in that eventuality not only the object of the Act but also the right of the worker the quantum of punishment to be determined from the Labour Court would stand frustrated.