LAXMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner workman was dismissed from service after a departmental inquiry In which the charges levelled against him were said to have been proved. He challenged the order of termination by raising an industrial dispute under section 2- A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act). On receipt of the demand notice, the Conciliation Officer initiated conciliation proceedings which proved abortive. Thereafter, the Joint Secretary, Labour Department in the State of Haryana as per its communication dated 10-2.1993 addressed to the petitioner informed the latter that his case was not fit to be sent for *adjudication as according to the State Government the charges, levelled against him stood proved in the inquiry held by the management. Reference of the dispute raised by the workman was consequently declined. It is against this order of the State Government declining the reference that the present petitioner has been filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the State Government has transgressed its jurisdiction while exercising its powers under section 10(1) of the Act. While declining to make a reference it has virtually adjudicated upon the dispute and decided the merits of the case by holding that the services of the workman had rightly been terminated after domestic inquiry. By doing so, the State Government has usurped the functions of the adjudicating authority which it could not do while exercising its powers under section 10(1) of the Act. Even otherwise, it is a case where the provisions of section 11-A of the Act would come into play and it would have been open to the workman to plead before the Labour Court in case a reference had been made that the inquiry held by the management was not fair and proper and that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the proved charges. The workman could avail of this opportunity only if a reference had been made. The matter is squarely covered in favour of the workman by two Division Bench judgments of this Court in Annapurana Aggarwal Vs. State of Haryana and others CWP No. 7827 of 1994 decided on 8-8-1994 and in Ramphal Vs. State of Haryana and others, C.W.P No. 6821 of 1994 decided on 14-12-1994 .

(3.) In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the State Government (Annexure P-7 with the writ petition) declining the reference quashed. The State Government is directed to refer the dispute for adjudication to appropriate authority within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Petition allowed.