Ramgopal Pareek vs State and Others

Appellant filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2806/1983 before the learned single Judge of this Court, who vide order dated November 30, 1992, granted liberty to the appellant to raise a dispute regarding termination of the services under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the ''1947 Act''). Appellant thereafter filed an industrial dispute before the conciliation officer, Sikar, on January 6, 1993, challenging his termination order on the ground of violation of Section 25F of the 1947 Act. The complaint of the appellant was taken in conciliation talk by the conciliation officer but as no conciliation arrived between the parties, the conciliation officer sent his failure report to the Government on January 27, 1994. The State Government on November 22, 1994, issued an order informing the appellant that after exercising powers u/s 12(5) of the 1947 Act, the dispute of the appellant could not be referred for adjudication before the Labour Court. The appellant assailed the said order dated November 22, 1994, before the learned single Judge by filing a writ petition on August 29, 1995. The learned single Judge, vide its order dated March 3, 2000, dismissed the writ petition. Hence this Special Appeal.

Mr. A.K. Pareek, learned counsel appearing for the appellant canvassed that the State Government is only required to see whether dispute exists between the parties. Once a dispute exists, the Government has no jurisdiction to go into the merits of the dispute. Reliance has been placed on Chandi Ram and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. 1996 (3) WLC (Raj) 423.

Per contra, Mr. Hanuman Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supports the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge.

We have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record.

It is settled law that appropriate Government is required to see that whether the dispute exists between the parties i. e. employer and employee. Once a dispute exists, the appropriate Government has no jurisdiction to go into the merits of the dispute. The Division Bench of this Court in Chandi Ram''s case (supra) indicated that if the appropriate Government takes the task upon itself to adjudicate the merits of the dispute it would certainly be in excess of the power conferred on it by law. This view finds support from the ratio indicated by their Lordships of Hon. Supreme Court in Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Others,

The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant observing that looking to the nature of the employment no purpose will be served in directing the State Government to refer the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court after a lapse of more than a decade of the termination. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the observations of learned single Judge in view of the fact that the liberty of filing the dispute to the Labour Court was granted by this Court on November 30, 1992, on an earlier writ petition preferred by the appellant. This fact escaped the notice of the learned single Judge while deciding the writ petition.

Resultantly, we allow the Special Appeal, set-aside the impugned order of the learned single Judge as well as the order dated November 22, 1994 (Annexure 9) of the State Government and direct the State Government to refer the industrial dispute raised by the appellant for adjudication to the Labour Court within a period of two months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order.

Costs easy.