K.N.SINGH, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against the order of the Central Government dated December 4, 1973 holding that the petitioner's dispute was not fit for reference to adjudication to Industrial Tribunal. Brief the facts are that the petitioner joined service as Accounts -cum-cash clerk in the Bank of Baroda at its Bindki branch in district Fatehpur. The appointment letter dated October 27, 1972 indicated that the petitioner's appointment was on probation for a period of six months which was liable to be extended by the Bank at its discretion. It further contained a condition that it on the expiry of the period of probation the petitioner's work and conduct was found satisfactory, he would be confirmed, but if his work was not found satisfactory his services would be terminated by giving him one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice. On March 3, 1973 the petitioner was served with an order dated April 30, 1973 terminating his service on the ground that his work during the probationary period was not found satisfactory. The Union of the employees of the aforesaid Bank of Baroda espoused the petitioner's cause and raised industrial dispute. The Assistant Labour Commissioner carried on conciliation proceedings, but if failed as no settlement could be arrived at between the parties.
(2.) Thereafter the Assistant Labour Commissioner submitted his report to the secretary Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation (Department of Labour and Employment) Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi, giving information about the failure of the conciliation proceedings. The Union of the employees of the Bank made representation to the Central Government for referring the dispute to adjudication. The Central Government but its order dated December 4, 1973 refused to refer the dispute to adjudication as in its opinion there was no prima facie case. The employees union made another representation for reconsidering the matter. The Central Government rejected the application by its order dated February 15, 1974. Aggrieved the petitioner has preferred the present petitioner for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated December 4, 1973 and February 15, 1974 and a writ of mandamus directing the Central Government to refer the dispute to adjudication.
(3.) Sri G.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that instead of referring the dispute to Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, the Government has itself usurped the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal and decided the dispute on merits. It is necessary to quote the relevant portion of the order of the Central Government. It reads thus: "I am directed to say that Sri Gupta's work during probationary period was not found satisfactory by the management. Moreover, the termination of his services by the management is in accordance with his terms of appointment. In the circumstances, the action of the management does not appear to bona fide. The Central Government, therefore, do not consider the dispute prima facie fit for reference to adjudication.";