MUKESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dtd. 5/7/2010 passed by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India by which the appropriate Government has refused to make reference for settlement of dispute arose between the parties.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged on the post of Jalsewak by the respondents on 22/7/2008, but without any notice or without affording any opportunity of hearing, the respondents discontinued his services w.e.f. 6/2/2009. Counsel submits that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute by way of filing an application under Sec. 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947') before the Conciliation Officer. Counsel submits that the said application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the appropriate Government vide impugned order dtd. 5/7/2010 on the pretext that he was employed with the respondents for a period of 85 days only and he could not substantiate his claim for further employment with any documentary evidence. Counsel submits that the aforesaid order passed by the respondents is not sustainable in the eye of law as the said authority was not competent to adjudicate the dispute on its merits, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court on 17/8/2023 in the case of Gopiram Yadav vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.11575/2019).

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has hardly worked with the respondents for a period of 85 days only and he has not completed 240 days in a calendar year, hence under these circumstances, the provisions contained under Sec. 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act of 1947 are not attracted. Counsel submits that the petitioner was of the age of 30 years at the time of filing of the application, under Sec. 2A of the Act of 1947 in the year 2009, before the Conciliation Officer. Counsel submits that now the petitioner might have attained the age of superannuation, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Haryana State F.C.C.W. Store Ltd. and another vs. Ram Niwas and another reported in 2002 (94) FLR 618.