CHANDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Chander Singh had been working with the second respondent-Haryana Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "second respondent-Sugar Mills"), Rohtak as a press worker. On 22.1.1994, he was placed under suspension with immediate effect as per order Annexure P.1. A chargesheet dated 31.1.1994 (Annexure P.2) was issued to him alleging that he was on duty from 2.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. on 22.1.1994, but, he had left his place of duty at 9.15 a.m. without any information, which amounted to a serious misconduct. The petitioner sent his reply, Annexure P.3 dated 7.2.1994 denying the same and stating that he was in front of the workshop when the Managing Director abused him, and that the petitioner's objection to the language was resented by the Managing Director resulting in the issuance of chargesheet. But, on 6.7.1994, vide Annexure P.5, the petitioner was reinstated with immediate effect without prejudice to the departmental inquiry, and was also paid off with immediate effect. The petitioner made a demand under Annexure P.6 dated 12.12.1994. The cancilation proceedings which followed failed as is seen from Annexure P.7 dated 31.3.1995. The petitioner approached the Government (Ist respondent) requesting that the industrial dispute may be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Government rejected his request as per Annexure P.8 dated 29.12.1995 on the ground that the petitioner's case did not fall under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 "as it is a dispute regarding retirement".

(2.) That is why, the petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus for quashing Annexure P.8 dated 29.12.1995 and for directing the firstrespondent-State of Haryana to refer the dispute for adjudication by the Labour Court.

(3.) The first respondent-State of Haryana has filled the reply alleging that the management had stated that the petitioner was paid off on account of retirement from service and, therefore, the petitioner's case does not fall within the term 'termination' or 'retrenchment' as defined in Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The first respondent has also alleged that the petitioner failed to contradict the stand of the management that he was retired from service since the petitioner had submitted a certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Rohtak wherein his date of birth has been shown as 22.7.1934. The first respondent also alleged that after retirement the petitioner submitted another certificate wherein his date of birth is shown as 3.2.1938. According to the first respondent, since the petitioner was retired from service on his attaining the age of 60 years, there was no industrial dispute as contemplated under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, his request was rightly rejected.