OM PARKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case set up by the petitioner is that he was appointed as jobber by respondent No.4 (Project Manager IHDP, Udhampur) vide order No. 185 -87 dated 21.11.1986 in the Handloom Corporation in Sewana C.F.C Chenani with effect from 1.12.1986 to supervise the work of weavers. With regard to some balance of raw material outstanding, against weavers of C.F.C Tandar, an enquiry was initiated against him by respondent -4 vide notice (annexure -A) and thereafter the petitioner was also served with the charge sheet vide annexure -B. The petitioner submitted his reply to the same vide annexure -C. However, respondent -4 sought some more information from the petitioner vide annexure -D which was also forwarded. However, the enquiry was not completed and ultimately vide letter No.IHDP -409 -10 dated 21.2.1997 issued by respondent -4, the petitioner was disengaged from service with effect from July, 1992. He thereafter served respondents -4 and 5 with a demand notice dated 04 -09 -1997 calling upon them to grant all the reliefs but to no effect. He then filed an application (annexure -G) under section 12 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short hereinafter to be referred as the Act) before the Deputy Labour Commissioner (Conciliation Officer) Udhampur for initiating conciliation proceedings to which respondent -4 filed objections vide annexure -H. The petitioner also filed reply to those objections vide annexure -J. Respondent -3 made efforts to amicably settle the dispute between the petitioner and respondent -4 and after hearing both the sides, he finally made the failure report (annexure -K) under section 12 (4) of the Act. The said failure report was then forwarded by Labour. Commissioner, Udhampur to Labour Commissioner, Jammu vide his letter dated 18 -02 -2002 (annexure -L) for reference to the Tribunal. However, the matter was once again reconsidered by respondent -3 and disposed of vide order dated 23 -10 -2002 (Annexure -M). Petitioner is aggrieved of the same and seeks its quashment through the medium of the instant petition with a further prayer that respondents -1 to 3 be directed to refer the dispute for determination to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal.

(2.) THE instant petition was admitted on 13.2.2004. At pre admission stage, reply/objections was filed on behalf of respondents -4 and 5 through Mrs. Sindhu Sharma, Advocate. However, after its admission, no counter has been filed by either of the respondents. When this case was taken up on 08 -12 -2009 for its final disposal, Mrs. Sindhu Sharma, Advocate put in his appearance and stated that she had no instructions to assist this Court on behalf of the respondents -4 and 5 as the brief had been taken from her and since her name was reflected in the cause list, she thought it proper to apprise the Court of the factual situation. So after hearing Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition was kept reserved for order.

(3.) MR . Sharma submits, that respondent -3 has exceeded, his jurisdiction by passing the impugned order (annexure -M) as he had no power to reconsider the dispute once again after submitting failure report under section 12 (4) of the Act. In this situation, the only course open to respondents -2 and 3 was to forward the failure report to the Government for making reference of dispute for its determination by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. Mr. Sharma submits that there is no provision in the Act enabling the Conciliation Officer to make another effort for amicable settlement after filing of the failure report as this power does not vest in him. Therefore, the impugned order (annexure -M) has no legal force in it.