Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2756 (RAJ)

Karan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2006-09-18

K.S.RATHORE

body2006
Judgment K.S. Rathore, J.-This writ petition is directed against the impugned order of refusal of reference dated 26.02.1997 on the ground that as the respondent-employer has initiated enquiry against the petitioner, therefore, as per Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, reference can not be made. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that his services were terminated w.e.f. 12.03.1995 and on 211.1995 he made a complaint before the competent authority and during the proceedings pending before the conciliation officer, the respondent-employer after having knowledge of the conciliation proceedings, have initiated enquiry against the petition and issued charge-sheet on 09.06.1996. 3. The submission of the petitioner is that this enquiry was only initiated to deprive the petitioner from getting the benefit under the provisions of law and to frustrate the purpose of filing the complaint and making reference and it is apparently proved that on the ground of initiation of enquiry, the authority concerned has refused to make reference to adjudicate the dispute. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that services of the petitioner were never terminated. On the contrary, he was called upon by serving notice to co-operate with the respondent-employer in the enquiry, which was initiated against the petitioner. The respondents also referred notice for demand of justice, wherein the petitioner himself has claimed the wages beyond the period of 12.03.1995 and the services of the petitioner were alleged to be terminated w.e.f. 12.03.1995. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents also referred the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, which show that the present writ petition is pre-mature, as the services of the petitioner have not yet been terminated. The question of conciliation does not arise and the order of refusal of reference has rightly been passed vide order dated 26.02.1997. 6. I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully perused the impugned order dated 26.02.1997, by which reference has been refused as the inquiry was initiated against the petitioner by the respondent-employer. 7. It is not disputed that the petitioner made a complaint on 211.1995, whereas the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 09.06.1996, that too much after filing of the complaint by the petitioner. 7. It is not disputed that the petitioner made a complaint on 211.1995, whereas the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 09.06.1996, that too much after filing of the complaint by the petitioner. Now appreciating the submissions made on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner himself has asked for wages as also show that the petitioner was not allowed to attend his duties a he was not paid salary beyond the period of 211.1995. Thus, he was not allowed to discharge his duties. 8. Nowhere the respondents are able to show that the respondents have allowed the petitioner to continue on duty whereas he was prevented to discharge his duties and has not been paid accordingly. 9. I am fully satisfied with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that to frustrate the cause of the petitioner and to deprive him from legal remedy, which is available, has taken somersault and initiated the enquiry and issued charge-sheet on 09.06.1996 and also issued notice to call upon to co-operate in enquiry but no where the respondents have stated that the petitioner was not prevented to attained his duties. Thus, the action of the respondent-employer cannot be said to be just and proper and the plea taken by the respondents after filing of the complaint, this fact has not been properly considered by the authority while passing the impugned order dated 26.02.1997. 10. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order of refusal of reference dated 26.02.1997 is herewith quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed to refer the matter to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal while exercising the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act for raising the grievance of the petitioner ignoring the enquiry, which was initiated after complaint and the proceedings, initiated by the respondents.