RAMA PATI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.3.1993 passed by the Joint Secretary, Government of Haryana Labour Department (Annexure P1 with the writ petition) whereby the industrial dispute sought to be raised by the petitioner was declined to be referred for adjudication.

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

(3.) After hearing counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the State Government has transgressed its jurisdiction while exercising its powers under Section 19(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act). While declining to make a reference, the Government has virtually adjudicated upon the dispute and decided the merits of the case by holding that the workman was guilty of the alleged misconduct. The State Government has indeed usurped the functions of the adjudicating authority which it could not do while exercising its powers under Section 10(1) of the Act. At any rate, this is a case where the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act would come into play and it would be open to the workman to plead before the adjudicating authority that the enquiry held by the employer was not fair and proper and that the punishment of dismissal awarded was disproportionate to the proved charges. The workman could avail of the opportunity only if a reference had been made by the State Government but the latter has scuttled the matter at the stage of reference. This matter has been examined by two Division Bench Judgments of this Court in Annapurana Aggarwal vs. State of Haryana and others, C.W.P. No.7827 of 1994 decided on 8.6.1994 and in Ramphal vs. State of Haryana and others, C.W.P. No.6801 of 1994 decided on 14.12.1994 and it has been held that in cases in which Section -A of the Act is applicable, the State has no option but to refer the industrial dispute under Section 10(1) of the Act. It has also been held in these decisions that the State Government cannot usurp the functions of the adjudicating authority while exercising its powers under Section 10(1) of the Act.