SHANKAR BHUIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 22nd August, 2014, as contained in Memo No. L-20012/76/2014-IR(CM-1), issued under the signature of the Section Officer, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi, whereby the said Ministry did not find it proper to refer the dispute raised on behalf of the petitioner for industrial adjudication.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner's father, namely, Aklu Bhuiya was appointed as Store Tyndal at Kustore Area No. 2 of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited on 28th August, 1972, who died in harness on 22nd June, 1993. The petitioner's mother-Jaswa Devi, being wife of the concerned workman (Late Aklu Bhuiya), submitted an application before the Project Officer, Kustore Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited-respondent no. 4 on 17th August, 1993 and 10th July, 1995 for keeping the name of the petitioner in the live roster on the ground that during the relevant time, the petitioner was a minor. After attaining majority, the petitioner made an application in the month of April, 2001 before the Manager of the concerned colliery, seeking compassionate appointment in place of his father. The respondent no. 4 vide letter contained in Memo No. BCCL/Kustore Colliery/2003/369 dated 24th/26th February, 2003 rejected the said claim seeking compassionate appointment by the petitioner on the ground of delay. An industrial dispute was raised on behalf of the petitioner by Bahujan Mazdoor Union against denial by the Management of BCCL in providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The conciliation between the Management and the Union however failed and a failure report was sent to the Appropriate Government i.e. the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi. However, vide impugned letter dated 22nd August, 2014 issued under the signature of the Section Officer, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, the Appropriate Government refused to refer the dispute for adjudication.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order dated 22nd August, 2014, submits that the Appropriate Government by refusing to refer the matter for adjudication cannot itself adjudicate the dispute. The Appropriate Government is not authorized to see the merit of the claim made on behalf of the workman, rather if the conciliation fails and there is a prima facie dispute in existence, the Appropriate Government is duty bound to refer the matter before the Appropriate Court for adjudication of the industrial dispute. The said legal position has already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. One of such judgments has been rendered in the case of Sarva Shramik Sangh v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2009)11 SCC 609. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Appropriate Government cannot enter into the merit of the dispute and thereby refusing to refer the same for adjudication before the industrial adjudicator.