2024 (8) TMI 1096 - HC - Indian Laws

Ministry of Labour's Decision Overturned; Dispute on Termination Sent for Fair Hearing to Labour Court.

Mukesh Kumar Versus Union of India and Others

The HC quashed the impugned order by the Ministry of Labour, which refused to refer the dispute for settlement regarding the petitioner's termination. The ... Challenge to order passed by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India by which the appropriate Government has refused to make reference for settlement of dispute arose between the parties - HELD THAT:- Several grounds were raised by the petitioner including non-compliance of the provisions contained under Section 25G of the Act of 1947, while terminating the services of the petitioner. Reply to the aforesaid application was submitted by the respondents and an objection was taken therein that the petitioner had hardly worked for only 85 days with the respondents, hence, under these circumstances, none of the provisions of the Act of 1947 were attracted and no dispute arose between the parties, which was required to be adjudicated by the Labour Court by making a reference. Considering the application filed by the petitioner and reply submitted by the respondents, the competent authority refused to make reference only on a technical count that the petitioner has worked for 85 days only and he could not substantiate his claim for further employment with any documentary evidence. Whether under these circumstances, the order passed by the authority dated 05.07.2010 is legally sustainable in the eye of law or not? - HELD THAT:- In the case of Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and another vs. State of Bihar and Others [1989 (4) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that though while considering the question of making reference under section 10(1) of the Act of 1947, the Government is entitled to form an opinion as to whether an industrial dispute “exists or is apprehended”, but it is not entitled to adjudicate the dispute itself on its merits. While exercising power under Section 10(1) of the Act of 1947, the function of the appropriate Government is an administrative function and not a judicial or quasi judicial function. It, therefore, cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of the lis. The impugned order dated 05.07.2010 stands quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the appropriate Government for making reference of the dispute - Petition disposed off. Issues:1. Challenge to impugned order refusing to make reference for settlement of dispute.2. Interpretation of provisions under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 regarding termination of services.3. Competency of appropriate Government to adjudicate disputes on merits.Analysis:The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, which refused to make a reference for settlement of a dispute arising from the termination of the petitioner's services without notice or hearing. The petitioner claimed to have raised an industrial dispute under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was rejected by the appropriate Government on the grounds of insufficient evidence of employment duration. The petitioner argued that the order was not sustainable as the authority lacked competence to adjudicate the dispute on its merits, citing a relevant court judgment for support.The respondents contended that the petitioner had worked for only 85 days and had not completed the requisite 240 days in a calendar year, making certain provisions of the Act inapplicable. They also raised the petitioner's age and potential superannuation as factors against interference by the Court. The respondents cited a judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court to support their arguments.Upon considering the submissions and the record, the Court found that the competent authority refused to make a reference based solely on the petitioner's limited work duration without considering other grounds raised. The Court referenced a previous judgment emphasizing that the appropriate Government's role is administrative and not judicial, and it cannot delve into the merits of the dispute. The Court distinguished the cited judgment by the respondent's counsel, stating that the issues raised in the present case were different and required adjudication by a competent Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal.Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter to the appropriate Government for making a reference of the dispute, emphasizing the need for due opportunity of hearing to both sides. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, and any pending applications were also disposed of accordingly.