S C PARIDA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER S. C. Parida seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 21. 9. 1994. By virtue of the said order, respondent No. 1 declined to make a reference as an industrial dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 Avery India Limited.

(2.) PETITIONER had joined respondent No. 2 as a trainee. He was thereafter appointed as Junior Clerk on 1. 12. 1994 and an Accounts Officer on 1. 1. 1990. The services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 10. 5. 1994. The petitioner served a demand notice but the respondent No. 1 refused to make the reference and passed the impugned order Annexure P-4 which reads: " Regarding above mentioned subject you are informed that the Government does not consider your case fit to be referred for adjudication to the Court because after enquiry it has been found that since you were working as Accounts Officer and the same falls in the Supervisory capacity and is excluded from the definition workman as defined in Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. "

(3.) THE said contention indeed is well taken. We know from the decision in the case of Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. , A. I. R. 1989 S. C. 1565 that the appropriate Government has administrative functions. The Government while considering question whether reference should be made or not cannot delve into the merits of the dispute. The controversy that has been referred to above would be adjudicated only after making a reference to the appropriate forum under the Industrial Disputes Act. It cannot be held that the claim of the petitioner was absurd and no reference was required to be made.