HUKAM CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner, Hukam Chand has challenged the legality of the order (Annexure 7) dated 9th January, 1980 and the order (Annexure 8) dated 7th September, 1981 whereby the Central Government refused to refer for adjudication the industrial dispute relating to the early retirement of the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner was an employee of M/s Jaipur Udhyog Ltd. , respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company' ). He joined the company in 1953 and was posted as Mechanical Foreman at the Phalodi Lime Stone Quarry. According to the petitioner his date of birth is 16th April, 1931 but the company notified the date of birth of the petitioner as 16th April, 1921. THE petitioner filed objections against the aforesaid entry about the date of his birth and requested for correcting the same, but the management of the company refused to correct the entry about date of birth and on the basis of the date of birth as entered in the company's records, the petitioner was retired from service on 15th April, 1979. An industrial dispute was raised and it was taken up for conciliation, but the conciliation efforts failed and the Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report. THEreafter the matter was considered by the Government of India and the Central Government passed the order (Annexure 7) dated 9th January, 1980 whereby the Government refused to refer the dispute for adjudication for the reason that the petitioner was not a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). THE petitioner submitted a representation for reconsideration of the said order dated 9th January, 1980, but the said representation was rejected by the Government by order (Annexure 8) dated 7th September, 1981. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that while passing an order under section 10 (1) read with section 12 (5) of the Act. the appropriate Government may consider prima facie the merits of the dispute and take into account other relevant considerations which would help it to decide whether in making a reference would be expedient or not but at the same time in cases where the dispute in question raises questions of law and disputed questions of fact, the appropriate Government should not purport to reach a final decision on the said questions because that would normally lie within the jurisdiction of the INdustrial Tribunal or the Labour Court. It is also necessary that while exercising this power, the appropriate Government in case it chooses not to make a reference must give reasons for arriving at the said conclusion and if the said reasons are found to be extraneous or irrelevant, then the said decision of the appropriate Government can be open to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia.