Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suraj Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 10 January, 2013
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No.13707 of 2011
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.13707 of 2011
Date of Decision: 10 .01.2013
Suraj Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Roopak Bansal, Addl. AG, Haryana,
for the respondents.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
The Special Secretary, Labour Department, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh in purported exercise of authority of the appropriate Government has declined to make reference to the area Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court of the dispute raised by the workman in his demand notice dated 10.12.2008. The order declining reference reads thus:-
"You are hereby informed that the Government does not consider your case fit for adjudication to the Labour Court because after the enquiry it has been revealed that you have raised demand notice against two organizations which is not maintainable. Therefore, in view of the above your demand notice is rejected."CWP No.13707 of 2011 -2-
In his demand notice (P-1) the workman had asserted that he was appointed as a Helper on 20.4.1998 on permanent basis by M/s Napino Auto & Electronics Ltd., Gurgaon. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Fitter and was transferred without his consent to work with M/s Parkash Enterprises, Gurgaon. His services were wrongfully terminated on 18.10.2008 by M/s Parkash Enterprises without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner claims that he was working under the direct control and supervision of M/s Napino Auto & Electronics Ltd. Gurgaon. The demand notice was raised under Section 2-A of the Act.
It is well settled that the appropriate government cannot bear the mantel of decision making in substitution of the adjudicatory jurisdiction of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals in a matter where a dispute or difference clearly exists or is apprehended between the parties. In Kuldeep Singh v. General Manager, Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre and another, (2010) 14 SCC 176 the Supreme Court has restated the law on the subject and held that:
"31. It is not open to the Government to go into the merit of the dispute concerned and once it is found that an industrial dispute exists then it is incumbent on the part of the Government to make reference. It cannot itself decide the merit of the dispute and it is for the appropriate court or forum to decide the same. The satisfaction of the appropriate authority in the matter of making reference under Section 10(1) of the Act is a subjective satisfaction. Normally, the Government cannot decline to make reference for laches committed by the workman. If adequate reasons are shown, the Government is bound to refer the dispute to the appropriate court or forum for CWP No.13707 of 2011 -3- adjudication."
In view of the above I have no hesitation in quashing the impugned order declining reference (P-2). This writ petition is allowed. The impugned order stands quashed. The appropriate Government is directed to consider making a reference to the area Labour Court within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order so as to let the adjudicatory process begin and reach to its logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 10.01.2013 manju