S.K. MUSTAQUE AHMAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. By the impugned orders contained at Annexure 4 dated 7.7.2011, Annexure-6 dated 2.1.2012 and Annexure-7 dated 28.11.2011, the petitioner was asked to file a case directly under Section 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act for his alleged cause of action relating to termination from service by his employer. According to the petitioner, he had been terminated from service on 18.6.2007 from the Tata Steel Ltd. He raised his dispute before the Deputy Labour Commissioner on 16.12.2010 for making a reference to the Labour Court. The conciliation, thereafter, has failed and accordingly, petitioner was asked to raise his dispute before the competent Court. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid advise given by the impugned orders are alien to the exercise of power by the respondent- authorities, who should either make reference to the dispute raised by the employee- workman or refuse to make a reference to the concerned Labour Court. It is also submitted that by virtue of the amendment in Section 2A introduced w.e.f. 19.8.2010, the petitioner did not have any option to straightway move the competent Court for adjudication of the dispute relating to the dismissal from service as the period prescribed therein of 45 days had expired from the date he had made his application to the Conciliation Officer. It is further submitted that by virtue of the said provision the application should also be made before the expiry of 3 years from the date of discharge / dismissal / termination of service as per Section 2A (II). -2- After hearing counsel for the parties, It appears that the respondent- authorities of the Labour Department of the Government of Jharkhand were required to follow the provisions as are laid down under the Industrial Dispute Act while making a reference of an industrial dispute or refusing the request for reference of the industrial dispute. The course open to the petitioner- workman for straightway moving the competent Court is independent of the exercise which is to be completed under Industrial Dispute Act so far as the reference of industrial dispute raised by the workman is concerned. In any case it appears that petitioner himself has also not invoked the provisions of Section 2 A within time by straightway moving the Court concerned.

(2.) BE that as it may, this Court does not consider it proper to issue any direction upon the respondents either way to make a reference or to refuse the request for the same. However, it will be open for the respondents to take appropriate decision in accordance with law within a reasonable time so far as the dispute raised by the workman- petitioner is concerned, which according to him has ended in a failure upon efforts of conciliation by the Deputy Labour Commissioner.