Madan Lal vs The Depot Manager, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and The State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.—Through this writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing orders Annexures P-1 and P-3 whereby his demand for reference to the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the Act) was declined.

Petitioner was in the service of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation at its Barnala Depot as Assistant Tyreman for the last 13 years when his services were terminated on 26.7.1985. His grievance was that his services were terminated without inquiry, charge sheet or payment of compensation. After the service of the demand notice, the conciliation proceedings were initiated by the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer. conciliation proceedings failed. After failure of the conciliation proceedings before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, he submitted failure report to the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh. Petitioner submits that after the conciliation proceedings had failed, Labour Commissioner should have referred the dispute to the Labour Court for determining whether the termination of his services was or was not in order. His services were terminated without any inquiry. Petitioner has stated that it was not within the ambit of the Labour Commissioner to say that his services have been rightly terminated and there was thus no "industrial dispute" between him and the management. He submits that it was only within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court constituted under the Act to determine whether the termination of his services was or was not in order. Labour Commissioner''s duty was only to see whether industrial dispute has or has not arisen between the workman on the one hand and the management on the other.

Respondent-management contested this writ petition.

In my opinion, the petitioner was a workman as understood in the Act. Similarly, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation was an industry as understood in the Act. Petition was working in the Corporation for the last 13 years when his services were terminated. As to whether termination of his services was or was not in order, was not within the ambit of the Labour Commissioner to adjudicate upon. All that the Labour Commissioner was required to determine was whether there had arisen industrial dispute between the workman on the one hand and the management on the other. If there was industrial dispute having arisen between the two, Labour Commissioner could not have withheld the reference of the industrial dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court constituted under the Act. It was not within the ambit of the Labour Commissioner to comment upon the merits or otherwise of the termination order. It was held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in M.P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh Vs. State of M.P. and Another, , that Section 10 of the Act permits appropriate Government to determine whether dispute "exists or is apprehended" and ten refer it for adjudication on merits. The demarcated functions are (1) reference; (2) adjudication. Government should be very slow to attempt an examination of the demand wit a view to decline reference and Courts will always be vigilant whenever the Government attempts to usurp the powers of the Tribunal for adjudication of valid disputes. To allow the Government to do so would be to render Sections 10 and 12(5) of the Act nugatory.

In my opinion, when industrial dispute had arisen between the petitioner on the one hand and the respondent No. 1 management on the other, Labour Commissioner should have referred the dispute for adjudication to Labour court constituted under the Act. So, orders Annexures P-1 and P-3 are quashed. Respondent No. 2 - State of Punjab is directed to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court.