PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS letters patent appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated August 23, 1989, whereby the order of the Union of India declining to make a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, was set aside and the Union of India was directed to make a reference to the industrial tribunal for adjudication. It was also held by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner is a workman and, therefore, he was entitled to claim the reference.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that neither the learned Single Judge could hold in the writ jurisdiction whether the writ petitioner was a workman or an officer of the bank and that the reference could not be made to the industrial tribunal in the writ jurisdiction. At the most, the Union of India could be directed to re-consider the matter and to pass the appropriate orders. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that such a direction could be given in the writ petition and, therefore, there was nothing wrong or illegal therein. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon V. Veerarajan v. Govt. of T. N. , A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 695. and Krishna Babu Ghadiquokar. , (1986) 1 Lab. L. J. 329.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that in the writ jurisdiction no such finding could be given as to whether the writ petitioner was a workman or an officer of the Bank, as contended on behalf of the employer. Moreover, no direction could be given to the Union of India to make a reference At the most, the Union of India could be directed to reconsider the matter. In V. Veerarajan's case (supra), the Supreme Court directed in appeal against the judgment of the Madras High Court to the State Government to make a reference as the grounds given by the State Government were not germane. Such a direction could be given by the Supreme Court in appeal, but this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution could send the case back to the Union of India for consideration only, though in the case of Krishna Babu Ghadgaokar (supra), the view taken by the Bombay High Court was otherwise, but in this case, we do not find, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances, that in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court should make a reference direct to the Industrial Tribunal.