JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the case arc that the petitioner was appointed workman by the Alias Cycle Industries Limited in its works on June 20, 1978. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on November 29, 1991, that he was absent from his duties since November 14, 1991. This was followed by an enquiry. The Inquiry Officer held the charge proved. As a result, the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated March 6, 1992. The petitioner served a notice of demand dated March 11, 1992, and his plea was that no disciplinary action was ever initiated against him for more than 13 years of his service and it was in November, 1991 that on account of charge of the immediate controlling officer of the petitioner there arose some difference of opinion and the petitioner was threatened with dismissal by showing him as willfully absent from duty. On the next following day, i.e., November 15, 1991, the petitioner instituted a civil suit, in which he prayed for a temporary injunction against the respondent restraining it from showing the petitioner as wilfully absent from duty. Further case of the petitioner is that he was taken in by the Inquiry Officer, who assured that the petitioner would be given full justice. Ultimately he was left with no alternative except to serve the notice of demand after order of dismissal had been passed against him.
2. The Appropriate Government vide order dated September 10, 1992, Annexure P-3, declined to refer the dispute to the Labour Court and observed, in so far as material, as under:
“…..during the investigation it has been revealed that you absented yourself from duty w.e.f. November 14, 1991 without any permission or leave for continuous period of 10 days and have lost your right to continue in service”.
The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order of the Appropriate Government in this writ petition.
3. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent- management.
4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties.
5. Mr. R.S. Mittal, learned counsel for the respondent-Management, does not dispute that there is an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). His contention, however, is that the Appropriate Government is not a post office and it is not precluded from examining whether the workman has a prima facie case requiring reference to the Labour Court. He relied on State of Bombay v. K. P. Krishnan and Ors. (1960-II-LLJ-592), Bombay Union of Journalists and Ors. v. State of Bombay and Anr.(1964-I-LLJ-357) and Ram Avtar Sharma and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr. (1985-II-LLJ-187) in support of his above contention.
6. Mr. Sudershan Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that it is not open to the Government to delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of the same. Where a dispute exists or is apprehended, it is the duty of the Appropriate Government to make the reference. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Goel on Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1989-II-LLJ-558). Mr. Goel also pointed out that the Appropriate Government had altogether failed to take notice of very significant and telling circumstance namely, that the petitioner-workman instituted a civil suit without letting any grass to grow under his feet on the very next day since when he is alleged to be wilfully absent from duty. Necessary facts were detailed by him in the demand notice. The position of law is fairly well settled. Whereas the Appropriate Government is not required to act as a post office, it is at the same time equally settled that the State Government cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and where it is found or it is not disputed, as in the present case, that a dispute exists or is apprehended, the State Government is required to make a reference, unless the reference is not considered necessary on the ground that it is patently frivolous or clearly belated or that making the reference will have an adverse impact on the general relations between the employer and the employees in the region etc. The workman has put forward his own plea with regard to the fact whether he participated in the enquiry. It may be assumed for the present purposes that the workman did participate in the enquiry. This fact is, however, easily understandable because when the workman is faced with a charge-sheet, he cannot run away from it and he has to defend himself against the same. In our view, it was a very significant circumstance that the workman instituted a civil suit on the very next day i.e., November 15, 1991, putting it on record that he apprehended that he would be shown absent from duty and proceeded against It is well known that unless compelled by circumstances ordinarily people avoid going to the Courts. Doing so involves expense and considerable botheration. It is also of no consequence that ultimately the suit was got dismissed as withdrawn. After the petitioner had been dismissed on March 6, 1992 there was hardly any point left in continuing with the suit, which was consequently withdrawn on July 17, 1992. We are, therefore, unable to sustain the order passed by the appropriate Government, we accordingly allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order Annexure P-3. The Appropriate Government shall reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made herein and take further action according to law. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the appropriate Government on July 30, 1993.