Madras High Court
Vasudevan vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu, ... on 14 June, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1997)2MLJ443
Author: P. Sathasivam
Bench: P. Sathasivam
ORDER P. Sathasivam, J.
1. Aggrieved against the order of the first respondent in G.O.Ms. No. 2209, Labour Department, dated 29.9.1987 rejecting the request of the petitioner to refer the matter before the Labour Court, the petitioner-workman has filed the present writ petition.
2. In order to appreciate the case of the petitioner I hereby extract the impugned order:
3. I have heard Mr. S. Periyaswami, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Balasubramanian, learned Additional Government Pleader for first respondent and Mr. S. Kadarkarai, learned Counsel for the second respondent.
4. The only reason given by the Government in the impugned order is that inasmuch as the petitioner has submitted resignation letter dated 2.7.1986, it is not possible for him to raise an Industrial Dispute. It is the contention of the learned Counsel forthe petitioner that the services of the petitioner have been terminated on 1.6.1986 and at no point of time, he has submitted any resignation as found in the impugned order. He also disputes the other contentions that during the conciliation proceedings the management has offered employment. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that whether the petitioner has been terminated from service on 1.6.1986 as contended by him or submitted his resignation on 9.7.1986 as contended by the management have to be decided only by the Labour Court by resorting to appropriate proceedings. In other words, according to him, it is not open to the Government to summarily reject the request of the petitioner to refer the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication. In support of his contention he also brought to my notice the order of Somasundaram, J. dated 12.8.1994 made in W.P. No. 12452 of 1984. As observed by the learned Judge in the said decision, the issue raised by the petitioner workman has to be considered only by the appropriate Labour Court and it is not possible for the Government to reject the request merely on the basis of the representation and counter representation by the parties. Moreover, the Apex Court in many cases has held that in these type of matters in view of the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act "reference is the rule" and "rejection is an exception". In those circumstance, I am satisfied that the first respondent has committed an error in rejecting the request of the petitioner to refer the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned Government Order is quashed and the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Net result the writ petition is allowed. The order challenged in this writ petition is set aside and the first respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass fresh appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.