Ashok Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India & Another on 15 September, 2009

0
70
Chattisgarh High Court
Ashok Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India & Another on 15 September, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  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

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here