HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION No 786 of 2004
Ashok Kumar Yadav
...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & another
...Respondents! Shri S P Kale Advocate for the petitioner
^ Shri R Pradhan Advocate for the respondent No 1
CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J
Dated: 15/09/2009
: Judgement
ORDER ORAL
Passed on 15th day of September 2009
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
1. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of
respondent No. 2.
2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 13th
September, 2002 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, declining reference on failure of
conciliation, to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
(for short `CGIT’), on the ground that the complainant has
not completed 240 days of service in a calendar year and as
such, he is not entitled to grant of benefit under the
provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
3. Shri Kale further submits that no finding of such
nature can be recorded without examining the documents.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and
perusing the records, it appears that the grievance of the
petitioner cannot be examined without proper adjudication of
the matter. Since the petition involves disputed question of
facts, therefore, it was desirable to refer the dispute to
the CGIT. The Desk Officer, Government of India, Ministry of
Labour, cannot decide the dispute which is a subject matter
of the CGIT and as such, declining reference to the CGIT
does not seem to be proper.
5. The Supreme Court, in Sharad Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of
Delhi & Others1, while taking into consideration that
determination of the question requires examination of
factual matters for which materials including oral evidence
will have to be considered, directed the respondent No. 1
therein, to refer the dispute raised by the appellant
including the question whether the appellant is a workman
under the Act, to the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court for
adjudication.
6. In view of the above, the order dated 13th September,
2002 (Annexure P/1) is quashed and the respondent No. 1 is
directed to refer the matter to the CGIT for proper
adjudication, as early as possible, preferably within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt a copy of this
order.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed to the above
extent. No order asto costs.
JUDGE