MUKESH KHANNA Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION CHANDIGARH AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims that his services were illegally terminated by the respondent-Company vide order dated March 14, 1994. On June 8, 1995 the petitioner served a notice of demand. The matter was considered by the appropriate Government. The petitioner's request for reference to the Labour Court was declined vide order dated June 25, 1998. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) WE have heard counsel for the parties.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Government has refused to make a reference to the Labour Court on the ground that the workman was asked "to join duty at Nangal even during conciliation but the workman rather imposed a pre-condition of wages for the intervening period. " It was further observed that the Management had "taken the stand that they have not terminated the services of the workman and are still prepared to take the worker on duty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " Thus, it was found that no case was made out to hold that there was an existing dispute. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the observations, as made in this order, are factually incorrect.