JAGDISH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What has been impugned in these petitions are the orders of the State Government whereby the industrial disputes sought to be raised by the petitioners (workmen) regarding termination of their services were declined to be referred for adjudication. It is not disputed that the workman had been working with respondent 4 for some time and that their services were terminated. On a demand notice served by the workmen, conciliation proceedings were held and they proved abortive. Thereafter the State Government declined to refer the disputes and sent a communication to Jagdish Chand, workman, which reads as under :-

(2.) A perusal of the aforesaid communication makes it clear that the State Government found that the management had employed the workman on contract basis from time to time and that he did not remain in service regularly for more than 240 days. The petitioner-workman has averred in the writ petition that he had worked for more than 240 days and that he was a member of the provident fund and claims that he was covered by the Employees State Insurance Scheme. The workman also claims to have the E.S.I. Card with him which according to him gives his date of employment showing that he had more than 240 days of service to his credit. On the basis of these allegations the petitioner contends that the order of the State Government declining to refer the dispute deserves to be quashed. The respondent has not fded any written statement and the averments made by the petitioner-workman have not been controverted. A perusal of the communication sent by the State Government makes it clear that the latter has decided the disputed questions raised by the petitioner which were not within the scope of its powers under section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is by now well settled that the State Government while exercising its powers under the Act cannot adjudicate upon the disputes raised by the parties though it can refuse to make a reference if the dispute is patently frivolous or highly belated. The power to adjudicate vests only in the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunals who will decide the lis between the parties on a reference made to them by the State Government. Since the State Government has itself decided the dispute, the impugned orders declining to refer the disputes cannot, therefore, be sustained.

(3.) Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed and the orders of the State Government declining to refer the disputes quashed. The State Government is directed to reconsider the matter afresh in the light of the relevant considerations and pass an order in accordance with law. In case the government decides not to refer the disputes, it shall record its reasons in terms of section 12(5) of the Act and communicate the same to the petitioners. Since the disputes pertain to the year 1986/1987, the Government is directed to pass an appropriate order within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.