Prabir Bhattacharyya vs The Special Commissioner, Labour Department, Haryana and Another

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 23.08.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 16209 of 2012) filed by the appellant for setting aside the communication dated 1.7.2012 sent by the Government declining to refer the industrial dispute to the Labour Court, raised by the appellant, has been dismissed. The communication dated 1.7.2012 reads as under:-

You are being informed that the Govt. has not considered your case fit for reference for adjudication, since it is known through investigation that you have already filed your case u/s 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, Circle-1, Gurgaon. So, your case cannot be referred again for adjudication to the Labour Court. For this reason your demand notice is being dismissed.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant while observing that the appropriate Government has committed no illegality in declining to refer the industrial dispute to the Labour Court because the workman had already filed the claim petition before the Labour Court u/s 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'').

After hearing the appellant, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal. It appears that the workman, who is appearing in person, is unnecessarily litigating the issue.

Section 2A of the Act, which has been amended by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (24 of 2010) [for short ''the Amendment Act of 2010''], reads as under:-

2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute.-(1) Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10, any such workman as is specified in sub-section (1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.

(3) The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-section (1).

Sub-section (2) of Section 2A clearly lays down that any workman, who is having a dispute with his employer with regard to his dismissal, discharge or termination, may make an application directly to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute after the expiry of 45 days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute. On such application the Labour Court/Tribunal has been empowered to adjudicate such dispute as if it was referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This right has been given to the workman notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10 of the Act. The workman has already filed his application u/s 2A(2) of the Amendment Act of 2010 and keeping in view the said fact, the appropriate Government has rightly restrained itself from referring the matter to the Labour Court for its adjudication as it will unnecessarily replicate the matter. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the order/communication dated 1.7.2012 made by the appropriate Government. It appears to us that the workman is unnecessarily agitating the matter, may be with malice to harass the management. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. No merits. Dismissed.