(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court.
(2.) The petitioners are working on different posts in K.C. Textile Mills Limited, the second respondent herein. Their services have been terminated in the year 1992 though they have put m more than three to eleven years' service. The petitioner issued Notice of Demand and sought the State Government to refer their dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. The State Government by its order dated 9.8.1994, 8.8.1994 and 12.8.1994, vide Annexures P-4 to P-12, declined to refer the dispute for adjudication on the ground that the Management has been sending letters to the petitioners repeatedly to join, but the petitioners absented themselves from duty and, therefore, their services were terminated. Challenging the same, the petitioners tiled this writ petition.
(3.) It is now well settled that the State Government has no power to decline to refer the dispute for adjudication by deciding itself the dispute. The State Government has to see whether thero exists an industrial dispute. It has no power to make an inquiry and on the basis of inquiry it cannot reject or decline the reference to the Labour Court for adjudication. It is the case of the workman that their services were wrongfully terminated. Whether the petitioners absented themselves voluntarily or whether abandoned the services is a disputed question of fact, which can only be decided by the Labour Court after recording the evidence of the parties. It is not the function of the State Government to go into the evidence and record a finding itself. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the orders of the State Government declining to refer the dispute to the Labour Court are liable to be set-aside.