MANGU KHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated November 26, 1995 (Annexure-6) passed by the respondent No. 1 by which order the respondent No. 1 has declined to refer the matter of termination of services of the petitioner to the appropriate Labour Court for adjudication.

(2.) THE petitioner as stated in the writ petition is said to have been appointed on the post of Peon/class IV employee on June 1, 1991 as daily wage worker. It is stated that even though the performance of the petitioner was satisfactory, but still his services were terminated on February 10, 1992 without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner challenged the order of oral termination of service and he had also mentioned that after removing the petitioner, four persons namely Vijay Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Ghanshyam and Kailash were employed. Vide impugned order, the authorities had declined to refer the matter to the appropriate Court mainly on the reasons that the petitioner has been appointed on daily wages and that there was no merit in the case of the petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner submits that the termination of the services of the petitioner was an industrial dispute as defined under the Act and the respondents could not have declined to refer the matter on the grounds mentioned in the impugned order and could not have usurped the powers of the Labour Court.