Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 831 (RAJ)

Balram v. State of Rajasthan

2001-05-09

J.C.VERMA

body2001
Honble VERMA, J.–The petitioner who was working with the respondent firm Luster Tiles Ltd. had raised an industrial dispute against his termination made w.e.f. 31.10.1992. He had challenged the enquiry held by the employer alleging, therein, that he was removed because of victimization and unfair labour practice. The conciliation proceedings were held under the Industrial Disputes Act. (2). It was the case of the respondents that the petitioner was removed after the proved charges. The Conciliation officer had given his failure report on 6.4.1994 (Annexure-1). On receipt of the failure report, the Government instead of referring the matter to the appropriate Labour Court had declined to refer to make a reference vide Annexure-2 on 8.6.1995. It has been mentioned in the impugned order that after going through the failure report of the Conciliation Officer and in view of the tripartite agreement, the employee has been punished and as such there is no basis for referring the matter. The case of the petitioner before the Conciliation Officer was that he was not allowed to work since 19.10.1991 and agreement was reached between the union and the employer on 12.12.1991 to the effect that the employees will be taken back in service. The employer had failed to take the workers on service and, therefore, demand notice dated 23.12.1991 was issued. It was also reported by the Conciliation Officer that the workman was charge-sheeted. The allegations were denied by the workman. The workman had challenged the enquiry proceedings. The case of the management was that as per agreement dated 12.12.1991, the management was entitled to initiate proceedings of indiscipline against the union members and other workers and, therefore, after issuing the charge-sheet and finding no co-operation from the workman, his services were terminated. (3). It is settled law that the termination of service is industrial dispute as defined under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The State Government cannot decide the industrial dispute on merits or on facts and the matter is to be adjudicated by the Industrial Labour Tribunal. (4). (3). It is settled law that the termination of service is industrial dispute as defined under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The State Government cannot decide the industrial dispute on merits or on facts and the matter is to be adjudicated by the Industrial Labour Tribunal. (4). In the case of Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoors Sangh and another vs. State of Bihar and others (1), it was held that while exercising power under Sec. 10(1) the function of the appropriate Government is an administrative function and not a judicial or quasi judicial function, and that in performing this administrative function the Government cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of the lis, which would certainly be in excess of the power conferred on it. The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the dispute could be adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal and ultimately a direction was given to the Government to make a reference in view of the judgment in Sankari Cement Alai Thozhiladar Munnetra Sangam vs. Govt. of Tamilnadu (2), Ram Avtar Sharma vs. State of Haryana (3), M.P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh vs. State of M.P. (4), Nirmal Singh vs. State of Punjab (5). (5). Similarly this court in the case of Indraj Singh vs. State of Raj. & Anr. (6), had held that the appropriate government cannot go into the merits of the dispute and for the reason that the matter was lingering on, it would be meaning-less to ask the government to reconsider the case. In the circumstances of the case, it was held to be appropriate to direct the State Government to make a reference to the Industrial Tribunal, which reference in regard to termination of service of the petitioner Indraj in that case, even the reference itself was enumerated. (6). In view of the above-said settled law and as the matter is pending right from 1992, 10 years have already passed. It is a fit case where the direction is required to be given to the State Government to make reference immediately on receipt of certified copy of this order within one month to the appropriate labour court. (6). In view of the above-said settled law and as the matter is pending right from 1992, 10 years have already passed. It is a fit case where the direction is required to be given to the State Government to make reference immediately on receipt of certified copy of this order within one month to the appropriate labour court. On the reference having been so made and received by the appropriate Labour Court, the Labour Court would try to decide the matter preferentially within one year from the date of appearance of the parties in the Labour Court. (7). The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The petition shall be entitled to the cost of Rs. 2,000/-.