Ram Diya vs State of Haryana and Another

R.S. Mongia and Jawahar Lal Gupta, JJ.—The petitioners in these two cases viz. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 8292 and 8293 of l993, challenge the action of the State Government in rejecting their prayer for reference of the dispute to the Labour Court The incident is one. The averments and the contentions raised by counsel for the petitioners are indentical. Consequently, these petitions can be disposed of by a common order. A few facts may be noticed.

The petitioners were employed with the Atlas Cycle Industries limited, Sonepat. On May 16, 1992, they asked for leave for two and a half hours. Their request was declined. Instead a "fabricated charge" was levelled against them that they manhandled the Assistant Foreman and their leave applications were torn into pieces. On May 18, 1992, the petitioners were called by the Security Officer. Then identity cards were taken away. They were pushed out of the factory. Vide telegrams dated May 23, 1992, the petitioners were informed that they had manhandled a senior officer of the Paint-shop department After a domestic enquiry, the petitioners were dismissed from service vide order dated September 11, 1992. They served notices of demand dated October 13, 1992 challenging the order of dismissal. The conciliation officer submitted a failure report to the Deputy Labour Commissioner. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the appropriate authority who refused to make a reference to the Labour Court It observed that the workman had been dismissed from service after serious charges of misbehaviour with the seniors had beet proved and "to maintain industrial peace". Aggrieved by the action of the competent authority the petitioners have approached this court through the present writ petition. They challenge the order on the ground that the merits of the dispute could not have been examined by the Government.

In response to the notice of motion, the respondents have filed their respective written statements. In the written statement filed by the Joint Labour Commissioner on behalf of the State of Haryana, it has been inter alia averred that during the course of conciliation proceedings, it was pointed out that the petitioners were charged for acts "of serious misconduct i.e. violence, riotous and disorderly behaviour, assaulting his superior, threatening, intimidating, using abusive and filthy language. Enquiry Officer was appointed to look into the charges levelled against the petitioners were duly proved... On the other hand the representative of the petitioner has failed to produce any documentary proof that the charges levelled against the petitioner were baseless, therefore, (sic) the Answering Respondent has rightly rejected the demand notice of the petitioner keeping in view that industrial peace and harmony in the factory.

A separate written statement has been fifed on'' behalf of the management by Mr. I.D. Chugh, the factory Manager. It has been inter alia averred that the writ petition is not competent. The averments made in the writ petition have been controverted. It has been pointed out that the petitioners had not demanded any leave. On the other hand, they had "abused and assaulted.... Shri Pankaj Arora, Assistant Foreman." On the 17th and 18th May, 1993, the petitioners did not report for duty. A regular charge sheet was issued to the petitioners. The identity cards were taken away after they had been suspended from duty during the pendency of the enquiry. The respondent maintains that "a fair and thorough enquiry was held into the charges... by Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Deputy Manager Industrial Relations..." After the charges were fully proved, the order of dismissal was passed on September 11, 1992. It has also ''been averred that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders are absolutely legal and valid.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is undoubtedly correct that the powers of the Government are administrative. It has to examine the facts of each case and it is only when it is satisfied about the prima facie existence of an industrial dispute that a reference has to be made to the Labour Court. If the competent authority finds that the complaint is frivolous, belated or based on extraneous considerations, it can refuse to make a reference to the Labour Court. It is also true that the State Government has not to mechanically refer every case to the Labour Court. At the same time, it appears to us to be settled that, while examining a case, the appropriate Government cannot adjudicate or pronounce upon the merits of the controversy. What is the position in the present case ?

The prayer of the petitioners for reference of the dispute to the Labour Court has been declined with the following observations :-

"On the subject died above, this is to inform you that the Government consider your case fit for reference to Labour Court because investigation has revealed that on having proved serious charges of misbehaviour with your seniors and to maintain industrial peace you have been dismissed from service."

A perusal of the above observations shows that the State Government has not come to the conclusion that no industrial dispute exists. On the other hand, the authority appears to have investigated the matter and come to the conclusion that serious charges of misbehaviour with the seniors had been proved against the workmen. Assuming it to be so, the questions that still remain to be answered are :-

i) Was there an industrial dispute ?

ii) Was there fair and proper enquiry ?

iii) Was the dismissal of the workmen justified?

While the State Government has not addressed itself to the first question, the other two are to be essentially answered by the Labour Court.

Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, we are of the opinion that respondent No. 1 has in fact adjudicated upon the dispute and not decided about the existence or otherwise of an industrial dispute. Consequently, we are unable to sustain the impugned orders.

As a result, we allow these writ petitions in limine and quash the impugned orders. We remit the matter to the Government for re-consideration. In the circumstances of these cases, we make no order as to costs.