BHANWAR LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHANWAR Lal, the petitioner in this writ petition, filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution was appointed as casual labourer on T.L.A. basis on 4th May, 1980. The case of the petitioner is that his services were terminated on 31st December, 1985 and he raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer i.e. Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Ajmer, (respondent No 5 here in) where in he submitted that the termination of the services was in contravention of the provisions of Section 25F 6f the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (here in after referred to. as 'the Act'). The petitioner has also stated that conciliation proceedings were held by respondent No. 5 and inspite of representations the respondent No. 5 has not submitted the failure report and no orders have been passed by the appropriate Government for referring the industrial dispute for adjudication. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to make a reference to the Labour Court, Jodhpur.

(2.) THE writ petition has been contested by respondents Nos. 2,3 and 4 who have filed a reply to the writ petition. In the said reply a preliminary objection has been raised with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petition and has urged that in view of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Central Administrative Tribunal can alone grant the appropriate relief to the petitioner. In the reply it has been admitted that the petitioner had completed 790 days service with the answering respondent but it is stated that the services of the petitioner were not terminated and he was asked to report for duty to the Permanent way Inspector, Northern Railway, Deedwana and he did not report the duty to him and that the provisions of Section 25F of the Act are not applicable.

(3.) SHRI Singhvi, the learned Counsel for the respondents, has urged that the dispute which has been raised by the petitioner relates to the termination of his services and it is a service matter, as the said expression is defined in clause (q) of Section 3 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, and that in respect of service matters exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred on the Central Administrative Tribunal to give appropriate relief. The submission of Shri Singhvi is that the powers of the Central Administrative Tribunal in this regard are the same as those of this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution and in the present case involving failure on the part of the Conciliation Officer to submit his report appropriate direction could be given by the Central Administrative Tribunal to the Conciliation Officer in the same terms in which this Court in exercise of its powers Under Article 226 of the Constitution can give a direction.