BIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment two civil writ petitions bearing Nos. 1659 and 1660 of 1992 can conveniently be disposed of Since facts are identical, it would be in the fitness of things that relevant facts from C. W. P. No. 1659 of 1992 be resisted.

(2.) PETITIONER challenges the order passed by the respondent No. 1 refusing to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner to the Labour Court/industrial Tribunal. The petitioner had alleged that he was working with Respondent No. 2 and, was confirmed on May 13, 1979. Respondent No. 2 served a charge-sheet which in fact, was never served upon the petitioner. No reply had been sent and the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry ex parte and gave the findings against the petitioner. The services of the petitioner were terminated. Petitioner raised an industrial dispute and served a demand notice. After receipt of the demand notice, the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer had a number of meetings for the conciliation. He submitted his failure report to the Labour Commissioner. The Labour Commissioner declined to refer the Industrial Act the Labour Court. The petitioner had filed a review application. The same was also rejected. It is crammed that the said orders are illegal because once the disput had been raised, respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon it or refuse to make a reference.

(3.) NONE appeared on behalf of the respondents when the case was taken up for arguments. Therefore, the Court did not have the advantage of hearing the respondents' counsel.