CHHAGAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition for writ, the petitioner seeks the reliefs of quashing of the communication dated 15.06.2005 (Annex.5) whereby the State Government has refused to refer the alleged dispute for adjudication; and directions against the respondent No. 2 for referring the dispute to the appropriate Labour Court for adjudication.

(2.) The petitioner has alleged that he entered into the services of Panchayat Samiti, Siwana on being appointed as Hand-Pump Mistry by the order dated 03.03.1984 and remained under continuous employment discharging his duties with sincerity; that the authorities of Panchayat Samiti, Siwana by oral order dated 31.07.1985 terminated his services in utter violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act'); that mandatory requirements of Section 25F of the Act were not complied with, various employees junior to the petitioner were retained in service, and while making new appointments, the petitioner was not given preference violating Sections 25G and 25H of the Act; that the petitioner continuously met the authorities of Panchayat Samiti, Siwana and requested to take him back in service and even got a notice served but with no response; that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute by filing an application before the Labour Welfare Conciliation Officer, Balotra (Annex. 1) supported by various documents to substantiate his claim; that after receiving notice from the said Conciliation Officer, a reply was submitted by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Siwana and the fact of the petitioner having been appointed as Hand-Pump Mistry on 03.03.1984 was not disputed but it was alleged that he had worked upto the month of May 1984 only and had not completed 240 days of service and violation of Sections 25F and 25G of the Act was also denied; that a detailed rejoinder was submitted by the petitioner pointing out that his termination had been in clear violation of the requirements of the Act; and that he made repeated representations but no steps were taken by the authorities to redress his grievances. The petitioner has further pointed out that the conciliation proceedings failed and the Conciliation Officer forwarded his failure report (Annex. 4) on 13.12.2004 to the Labour Commissioner, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

(3.) The petitioner has stated the grievance in the manner that it was surprising for him to receive the communication dated 15.06.2005 (Annex. 5) issued by the respondent No. 2, Dy. Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Department of Labour stating that since dispute has been raised after 20 years, it cannot be concluded that any industrial dispute exists; and the Government has refused to refer the dispute for adjudication to the competent Labour Court.