PRABHU RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Special Secretary, Haryana Government, Labour Department, Chandigarh, refusing to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner to the labour Court.

(2.) THE case set up by the petitioner is that he was appointed as an operator with M/s. Tightwell fastners on 5 October, 1996. He worked with due diligence and in accordance with the discipline of the establishment. However, his services were verbally terminated on 26 Juno, 2003 by informing him that the lathe machine on which he was working had been sold off. Against this action of the management, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute by serving a demand notice under section 2a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Copy of the demand notice was sent to the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, rohtak, and on his demand. the conciliation proceedings were commenced by the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer and it was held by him that no conciliation was possible and a failure report was submitted to the State Government on 19 November, 2003. The Special Secretary, Haryana Government, exercising the powers of Government, refused to refer the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner to the Labour Court, vide order, dated 29 december 2003, a copy of which, has been placed as Annexure P4 with the writ petition. The reason for rejection was that on enquiry it was revealed that the services of the petitioner had been terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Act after payment of retrenchment compensation. It was further noticed that as the petitioner was appointed for a specific job, the same had come to an end.

(3.) THE petitioner thereafter made an application for reconsideration of order (Annexure P4) and after the submission of the said application, the Labour commissioner, Haryana, held a conciliation meeting on 17 February, 2004, but the said application was rejected vide order, dated 22 July 2004, copy of which is attached as Annexure P8. The said application was rejected by a non-speaking order by mentioning therein as under: