K.S. Sugunachary and Others vs The Secretary, Government of India, Department of Labour and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J.—1. The petitioners are before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 14.10.2011, at Annexure ''F'' to the petition. By the said endorsement, the first respondent has stated that the claim put forth by the petitioners has been construed as an industrial dispute and has therefore rejected the request of the petitioners to refer for adjudication, though the conciliation had failed.

The petitioners'' claim that they have been working under the respondent No. 2 from the year 1985 onwards. It is their case that though they have discharged similar work as that of the permanent employees, they were treated as term contract labourers on paying lessor wages.

Further, though they are rendering continuous service, the claim of the petitioners is that they were refused employment with effect from 31.03.2009 and 21.11.2008 respectively. It is in that view, they had raised the dispute and the conciliation ultimately failed.

The petitioners therefore contend that in such circumstances, the dispute raised by both the petitioners was required to be referred to the appropriate Labour Court for the purpose of adjudication of the dispute Instead, by the impugned order dated 14.10.2011, the reference has been rejected. The petitioners are therefore before this Court.

Not withstanding the justification that is sought to be put forth by the respondents to sustain the impugned order, the conclusion therein is to be noticed, which reads as hereunder:

''The applicant workmen have failed to substantiate their claim for having worked directly under the supervision and control of the management. It is seen from the records that they have worked as term contract/labourers purely on contractual/casual basis through a contractor in exigencies of work. Hence, the matter raised cannot be construed as an Industrial dispute".

On perusal of the above extracted portion in the impugned order dated 14.10.2011, would indicate that the first respondent has adverted to merit of the contention that had been put forth and has rejected the claim of the petitioners and has therefore refused to refer the matter. Such conclusion as reached by the first respondent would not be sustainable in law. The said position has been clarified by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Avtar Sharma and others, Petitioners v. State of Haryana and another, Respondents. And Surinder Kumar Sharma, Petitioner v. Union, of India and others, Respondents, , AIR 1985 SC 915.

Further, in the similar set of circumstances, where the nature of the contention was similar, this Court by the order dated 16.8.2011 passed in W.P. 12495/2010 by referring to the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Avtar Sharma (supra), was of the opinion that such adjudication of the dispute by the first respondent would not be justified.

That be the position, in the instant case also, the refusal to refer would not be justified, since the first respondent has almost rejected the case on merit, which would not be justified.

Hence, the order dated 14.10.2011 is quashed. The direction is issued to the first respondent to refer the dispute to the appropriate Labour Court. Said reference shall be made as expeditiously as possible, but not later than two months from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished to the first respondent. All contentions of the parties on merits are left open to be urged before the Labour Court.

Petitions are accordingly disposed of.