HEM SINGH Vs. HPSEB & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A challenge has been laid to Annexure P-1, dated 19th April, 2007 whereby the State Government had refused to make the reference to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the workman for convenient sake) was engaged on 25-12-1994 on daily wage basis in the H.P.S.E.B. Sub-Division Kataula under the H.P.S.E.B. Division, Mandi. As per the averments contained in the writ petition, the workman was dis-engaged with effect from 1-9-1998 without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The workman sent a demand notice to the XEN, HPSEB, Mandi on 24-9-2005. The employer had filed reply to the demand notice sent by the workman. The workman had filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the employer. The Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, Mandi tried to settle the matter, but he could not succeed and ultimately he sent the failure report to the State Government. The State Government had refused to refer the matter to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal vide communication No.11- 23/84(Lab)I.D./06-Mandi on 19th April, 2007 primarily on the ground that there was a delay of seven years in raising the industrial dispute.

(3.) Mr. G.R. Palsra had strenuously argued that the order dated 19th April, 2007 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the State Government was bound to refer the matter to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala. He then contended that the State Government has no jurisdiction to enter into the merits of the dispute and once the demand has been raised and there were issues requiring consideration, the State Government was bound to refer the matter to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal. The learned Advocate General and Mr. Shrawan Dogra appearing on behalf of the respondents have supported the communication dated 19th April, 2007.