Jharkhand Janta Mazdoor Union having its office at Dhanbad through its Secretary, Pintu Mandal - Petitioner @HASH Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi

Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide impugned communication dated 28.02.2013, Annexure-3 declined to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner-Union of alleged denial of regularisation of Govind Rajak and 8 others Cooperative Workers by the Management of Balihari Colliery of BCCL for the following reasons:-

"The Secretary, Jharkhand Janta Mazdoor Union, Dhanbad vide his letter dated 12.05.2010 demanded for regularisation of S/Sri Govind Rajak and 8 others in the services of Balihari Colliery on the ground that the management have directly engaged the above workmen through cooperative association in prohibited categories of jobs namely Stone cutting, cutting drain, driving gallery, drilling, isolation stopping etc. The demand of the Union is not supported by any concrete documents as they have failed to prove that these persons were engaged or have been working under the direct control and supervision of the management of Balihari Colliery and they have also failed to prove that these persons were put in the required number of working days work for their regularisation in the services of BCCL. The union has also not furnished the period from when, the above persons were engaged by the management. Hence, the dispute is not deemed fit for adjudication ."

In the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner has also made bland assertion unsupported by any document that the concerned workmen were engaged in prohibited categories of jobs such as Stone cutting, cutting drain, driving gallery, drilling, isolation stopping etc., which are continuous and perennial in nature under direct control and supervision of the Management of Balihari Colliery through the Co-operative Society.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the representation made by the petitioner-Union on 12.05.2010, Annexure-I, which also contains bland assertion without any document enclosed thereto in the writ petition. The Referring Authority after receipt of the failure report from the Conciliation Officer-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, (Central), Dhanbad-I vide order dated 22.08.2012, Annexure-2, has found that demand of the petitioner-Union was unsupported by any concrete document. Union has failed to furnish any documents relating to period when these persons were engaged by the Management and that these persons had worked for a required number of working days under the direct control and supervision of the Management of Balihari Colliery for their regularisation in services under BCCL.

The foundational facts and supporting documents are essential for any such persons raising Industrial Dispute to enable the Referring Authority to form a prima facie opinion on the existence or apprehension of Industrial Dispute for being referred to the Industrial Court for adjudication. In absence of any such foundational materials and supporting documents, the Referring Authority i.e. Ministry of Labour cannot be blamed for non application of mind to the relevant facts of the case. This Court is also precluded from undertaking an exercise under judicial review in absence of any supporting documents to test the legality of the impugned order or that it suffers from non application of mind.

Counsel for the respondents have technical objection to the maintainability of the writ petition stating that the deponent in his affidavit has claimed himself to be sole petitioner whereas the petitioner is Jharkhand Janta Mazdoor Union. There are no description of eight persons whose grievances are being espoused on the part of the petitioner. Prayer made in the writ petition has been squarely opposed stating that it is incomplete on facts and supporting documents and a halfhearted attempt to question the decision of the respondent authorities.

Having considered the submissions of the parties in light of the relevant discussion made herein above, this Court is satisfied that there are no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference, neither does it suffer from non application of mind.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.