Allowed

Sunil Singh v. St of Hry & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Jan 2012CWP/10066/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed a petition for certiorari to quash an order declining an industrial reference. The court directed the respondent government to refer the dispute to the Labour Court instead of remanding the matter for a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 8.9.2004 is quashed and the respondent is directed to refer the dispute to the appropriate Labour Court.

Sunil Singh Vs St of Hry & Anr. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No. 10066 of 2005

¶2

- 1-

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 10066 of 2005 Date of Decision: 17.01.2012

Sunil Singh

……… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Haryana & another

¶9

………… Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

¶12

Present: Mr. Chander Shekhar Singh, Advocate for

¶13

Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr. O.P. Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

¶15

¶16

To be referred to the reporters or not?

¶17

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest.

¶18

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.

¶19

This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 8.9.2004 (P-5) passed by the Special Secretary, Haryana Government, Labour Department, Chandigarh exercising the powers of the appropriate government in its jurisdiction to consider making an industrial reference. The workman’s demand notice dated 26.5.2003, has been declined by passing the following order :-

¶20

“ You are informed that the Government does not consider your case fit to refer to the Labour Court for decision, because it has been found on enquiry that you have not worked with the management. The employeremployee relationship of yours does not exists. Therefore, in this position, your demand notice is rejected.”

¶21

Reason given for declining the reference is that on enquiry it has been found that no employer-employee relationship exists between the parties.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason assigned in declining reference was irrelevant consideration and the appropriate government could not have entered into an enquiry on its own but ought to have left it to be

¶23

CWP No. 10066 of 2005

¶24

- 2-

¶25

decided by the Labour Court on a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶26

Notice of motion of this case was issued on 7.7.2005. The respondentState has not filed the written statement in defence of its order nor produced the alleged enquiry. If this enquiry has reference to the failure report of the Conciliation Officer, the same has not been produced or relied upon. It is the assertion of the petitioner in para 6 of the petition that the failure report was not supplied to the petitioner even though he had submitted a representation dated 26.6.2004 addressed to respondent No.1 as well as to the Labour-cumConciliation Officer, Rohtak requesting for a copy of the failure report. That representation met with no response.

¶27

Mr. Chander Shekhar Singh, learned counsel appearing for Mr. Sudhir Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me to the demand notice under Section 2-A of the Act, placed as Annexre P-1, in which he has asserted that he was working on the post of Operator in Forging Section of M/s Microturners, Hisar Road, Rohtak. Other issues have also been raised, which I think were triable issues. The adjudication of those issues could not have been truncated by the impugned order declining reference. It cannot be said that the demand for justice was frivolous ex facie .

¶28

In any case, these are all matters which would more appropriately be dealt with and decided by the Labour Court upon receiving evidence from both the parties. I have no hesitation in quashing the impugned order dated 8.9.2004 (P-5). The question remains whether on quashing of the impugned order the matter should be remitted to the appropriate government for passing fresh orders or that this Court should itself direct the appropriate government to make a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act. I have heard Mr. O.P. Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana on this point. He has no serious objection in adopting the later path. In Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and another v. State of Bihar and others (1989) 3 SCC 271 Hon’ble the Supreme Court has observed that in

¶29

CWP No. 10066 of 2005

¶30

- 3-

¶31

appropriate cases the writ Court can direct a reference to be made if the rejection is unjustified. Adopting this course would save further time and energy.

¶32

For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 8.9.2004 (P-5) is quashed and respondent No.1 is directed to refer the dispute to the appropriate Labour Court.

¶33

17.01.2012

¶34

‘sp’

¶35

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE

Sunil Singh v. St of Hry & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Singh v. St of Hry & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harish Saini Vs Financial Commissioner & Pri. Se.. to Govt. Hry & Ors.

Maya International and Ors. Vs Jt. Registrar Coop Society Jlr Divn. Jalandhar & Ors.

Tarun Kaur Vs Punjab State ETC.(MAIN5)

Mac Remedies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Labour Commissioner Haryana and Ors.

Urmila Vs Presiding Officer and Anr.

M/S Kansal Coop House Building Society Ltd. Vs Registrar Coop Societies Pb