BHAGWAN SINGH Vs. HINDUSTAN ZINC LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order dated 3rd/5th January, 1979 (Anx. 2) and has sought a direction that it may be declared that the petitioner is in continuous service of the respondent No. 1 and the arrears of salary may be paid to him. In the alternative it has further been prayed that the order dated 17th March, 1982 may be quashed whereby the Central Government has refused to make a reference.

(2.) THE petitioner was an employee of M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd. The petitioner could not join his duties on account of illness, therefore his services were terminated on account of unathorised absence by the employer. The matter was referred to the Concialiation Officer and the Conciliation Officer gave a failure report vide Annexure 3. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the respondant No. 2 refused to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication vide Annexure 1 dated 17th March, 1982. Thus, in this back ground the petitioner has challenged the order refusing to make reference to the Industrial Tribunal as well as the order of termination dated 3rd January, 1979 (Anx. 2).

(3.) A perusal of this order would show that the reasons given for not making reference is absolutely laconic. The only reason given is that the Government does not like to refer the matter for its adjudication to the Tribunal because the management has decided the matter according to the Standing Orders. This is no reason for not referring the matter to the Tribunal, when the employee is making a grievance that his termination is wholly laconic and in serious violation of the principles of natural justice, it was incumbent for the respondent No. 2 to refer the matter for adjudication for the Industrial Tribunal. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Irrigation and Karamchari Sangh v. State of M.P. and Anr. : (1985)ILLJ519SC observed as under: