SUKHDEV KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the order of the Government, Annexure P.6 whereby it declined to make a reference to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Petitioner also seeks issuance of writ of mandamus directing the Union of India to refer the dispute between him and the Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Karnal to the Labour Court for adjudication.

(2.) There is no dispute on facts. Petitioner was offered employment for 85 days through employment exchange on 3.5.1996. He worked upto 5.8.1996 and was not allowed to continue thereafter, the appointment being for a period of 85 days only. The petitioner having not been allowed to work thereafter, served a demand notice dated 23.12.1996, Annexure P/4 to the effect that he was not allowed to work w.e.f. 6.8.1996 and that he was employed as water boy for 3 months and in this way his seniority in the employment exchange has been cancelled and it is a setback to his career. He thus prayed that he be taken back on duty as he has already worked for more than 90 days. It was also prayed that he is entitled to regular appointment as per prevailing rules. The matter was considered by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and after hearing the parties, he submitted a failure report after noticing that the workman had been offered a fixed time appointment for 85 days on temporary basis after his name had been sponsored by the employment exchange and, therefore, the Management had not violated the provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Ministry of Labour on a consideration of the matter declined to refer the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication on the ground that the workman had not worked with the Management for 240 days during the preceding 12 months of the alleged date of termination. As already noticed above, it is the order, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) The Management has put in appearance and has filed reply. The stand of the Management is the same as noticed above. It is, however, added that admittedly the workman did not work for a period of 240 days, so the Government refused to refer the claim of the petitioner for adjudication to the Labour Court being frivolous by passing a reasoned order. Support for this contention was sought from the Full Bench decision on this Court in the case of Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana, 1998 119 PunLR 1