Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 280 (UTT)

Ramesh v. Assistant Labour Commissioner

2003-11-20

RAJESH TANDON

body2003
JUDGMENT RAJESH TANDON, J. : Rule. Respondents waive service. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. 3. By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.4.2002 passed by respondent No. 1. 4. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner has been working as Beldar on daily wages since 3.5.1985 with respondent No. 2 but his services were retrenched from 4.6.1992. The petitioner has alleged that his services were illegally retrenched without following the procedure as has been prescribed under section 6(N) of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. On 18.11.2000 the petitioner has made an application to the Conciliation Officer under section 2(a) of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act. Conciliation Officer issued notices to both the parties. Respondent No. 2 submitted his written statement and has stated that the matter is not covered under U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, as the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in one calendar year. The petitioner has also filed reply to the written statement where he has stated that his services were illegally retrenched. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that on 22.4.2002 respondent No.1 has rejected the case of the 'petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not completed 240 days in a calendar year. 6. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order dated 22.4.2002 is wholly illegal inasmuch as respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute as to whether the petitioner has worked for 240 days or not as the function of the respondents No. 1 is administrative in nature. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred the case of Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and another v. State of Bihar and others, 1989 (3) SCC 271. where the Apex Court has held as under : "Applying the principle laid down by this Court in the above decisions, there can be no doubt that the government was not justified in deciding the dispute. Where, as I the instant case, the - dispute is whether the persons raising the dispute are workmen or not, the same cannot be decided by the government in exercise of its administrative function under section 10(l)Of the Act. Where, as I the instant case, the - dispute is whether the persons raising the dispute are workmen or not, the same cannot be decided by the government in exercise of its administrative function under section 10(l)Of the Act. As has been held in M.P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh v. State of M.P. case 1985 (2) SCC 103. there may be exceptional cases in which the State Government may, on a proper examination of the demand with a view to declining reference and Courts will always be vigilant whenever the government attempts to usurp the powers of the Tribunal for adjudication of valid disputes, and that to allows the government to do so would be to render -Section 10 and section 12(5) of the Act nugatory. 8. The same findings have been supported in the case of Sharad Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi and others. 2002 (93) FLR 826 (SC). 9. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition the order dated 24.4.2002 passed by the respondent No. 1 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. 10. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition Allowed.