Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1654 (PNJ)

Ajay Goswami v. State Of Haryana

2007-09-12

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, AJAI LAMBA

body2007
Judgment , J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 7.12.2005, Annexure P-6 declining to refer dispute raised by the petitioner for adjudication. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Clerk-cum-typist on daily-wage basis. He worked from 26.6.2001 to March, 2003 and thus, he completed 240 days. His services were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, `the Act). The petitioner gave a demand notice, Annexure P-1 seeking his reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. Notice was contested and the matter was thereafter considered by the "appropriate government". The Government took the view that termination of services of the petitioner being as per terms and conditions of service, case was covered by Exception (bb) to Section 2(oo) of the Act. 3. Contention raised in the petition is that the issue whether Exception (bb) to Section 2(oo) of the Act is attracted, is a matter which will have to be adjudicated upon and cold not be decided while considering the issue of making a reference. 4. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned order and submits that the issue being covered by statutory provisions and judgments of the Honble Supreme Court, no industrial dispute existed which was required to be adjudicated upon and, thus, declining of reference was justified. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. It is well-settled that though, the authority considering the question whether dispute should be referred for adjudication under Section 10 of the Act, acts in administrative capacity and not in quasi judicial and if such an authority acts illegally or on illegal considerations, the order may be liable to be set aside but the authority has to satisfy itself that dispute existed and required adjudication and if such an opinion is validly formed and there could be no two opinions on the issue, the same will not be liable to be interfered with. Reference may be made to the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Secretary, Indian Tea Association v. Ajit Kumar Barat and others, 2000(2) SCT 14; ILR 2000 SC 915, wherein it was observed :- "In Sultan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1996(2) SCT 491 : 1996(2) SCC 66 : 1996 AIR SCW 485 : AIR 1996 SC 1007, this Court held that an order issued under Section 10 of the Act is an administrative order and the Government is entitled to go into the question whether industrial dispute exists or is apprehended and it will be only a subjective satisfaction on the basis of material on record and being an administrative order no lis is involved. This law on the point may briefly be summarised as follows :- 1. The appropriate Government would not be justified in making a reference under Section 10 of the Act without satisfying itself on the facts and circumstances brought to its notice that an industrial dispute exists or apprehended and if such a reference is made it is desirable wherever possible, for the government to indicate the nature of dispute in the order of reference; 2. The order of the appropriate Government making a reference under Section 10 of the Act is an administrative order and not a judicial or quasi judicial one and the Court, therefore, cannot canvass the order of the reference closely to see if there was any material before the Government to support its conclusion, as if it was a judicial or quasi judicial order; 3. An order made by the appropriate government under Section 10 of the Act being an administrative order no lis is involved, as such an order is made on the subjective satisfaction of the Government; 4. If it appears from the reasons given that the appropriate government took into account any consideration irrelevant or foreign material, the Court may in a given case consider the case for a writ of mandamus; and 5. It would, however, be open to party to show that what was referred by the Government was not an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act." 7. We find that the petitioner being admittedly a daily-wager and the employment being public employment governed by rules and regulations, mere completion of 240 days was not enough to attract the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. We find that the petitioner being admittedly a daily-wager and the employment being public employment governed by rules and regulations, mere completion of 240 days was not enough to attract the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Reference may be made to the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Samrala v. Raj Kumar, 2006(3) SCC 81. Reference may also be made to judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1997 SC 3657; Reserve Bank of India v. Gopinath Sharma, 2006(6) SCC 221 and Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Limited, 2007(1) SCT 280 : 2007(1) SCC 533. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.