PUNJAB STATE FEDERATION OF CONSUMER COOPERATIVE WHOLESALE STORES Vs. HOME SECRETARY, UNION TERRITORY, CIVIL SECRETARIAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition challenges the order of reference made by the Government for adjudicating the dispute raised by a person claiming to be a workman arising out of an alleged illegal termination by the management through the Managing Director, Punjab State Federation of Consumer Cooperative Wholesale Stores Limited, Chandigarh.

(2.) The grounds of challenge were two fold one, the person who was seeking for a reference had been working as a field officer in Ludhiana, Cooperative Consumer Store and he could have no relief under the Industrial Disputes Act. The second objection was that he had already participated in the proceedings and domestic enquiry, had challenged the order to the Deputy Registrar and filed a revision to the Government and only after he failed he had sought for a reference to the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act. According to him, the provisions of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 was a complete Code itself as regards the provisions for enquiry relating to disciplinary matters and an adjudication before the Labour Court was barred by the provisions of the said Act.

(3.) As regards the contention that the person who was aggrieved by the order of termination was not a workman, we do not have all the details of the nature of work which had been assigned to him and whether he fulfilled the definition of a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. All that is available is the reference made by the Government to the Labour Court and what considerations went into the decision making are not brought before Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to the charge-sheet which had been issued to the claimant as evidencing the nature of duties which he had to perform and that the charge-sheet would indicate that he was not a workman. The charge-sheet talks about the alleged defalcation of funds and makes reference to certain entries in accounts book which were found to be not true. The charge-sheet is hardly a document which can give details of the nature of engagement and whether a person is a workman or not. He also refers to the fact that the claimant had admitted to have handed over the administration of the sub-office CONSTOFED, Ludhiana and therefore, handing over the administration would mean that he could not have been a workman. Further reference by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was that the claimant was also incharge of CONSTOFED Dal and allied Mills and a person who was incharge of Mills could not have been a workman. The learned counsel refers to a decision of this Court in Arun Kumar Singh v. The Labour Commissioner, Punjab and others, 2006 3 SCT 797, that the Government was required to have a prima facie satisfaction that a particular person who was seeking for an adjudication before the Labour Court was a workman and the Government itself shall not act merely as a post office and will certainly go prima facie into the merits of the dispute to find out whether the Government should make the reference or not. In my view, the judgment has no relevance to us for the Hon'ble Bench of this Court was referring to a case of an Assistant Engineer in establishment and was earning Rs. 7,703/- who claimed that he was a workman and sought for a reference before the Government. It was an admitted fact that he was doing supervisory functions and he was earning more than Rs. 1,600/-. In such a situation, the Hon'ble Bench said that there could not have been a valid reference. I have not the benefit of all the relevant materials to ascertain whether he fulfilled the status as a workman or not. It is possible that the management is able to establish by appropriate evidence that the person who was seeking for adjudication did not fulfill the status as such workman. Matters which are essentially issues of facts and which are disputed cannot be examined by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226. When there is no document clearly evidencing the actual functions, the mere reference to how the charge-sheet had been drafted or what the charge-sheet refers to does not enable me to take a definite finding that he cannot be a workman.