- (1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, Onkar Nath Kapoor, workman, and the U. P.Bank Employees Federation, challenge the validity of the orders of the Central Government dated 30-8-1972, 19-9-1972 and 1-12-1972, refusing to refer dispute between the petitioners and the State Bank of India for adjudication to Industrial Court.
(2.) Onkar Nath Kapoor, petitioner No. 1, was employed as Cashier in the State Bank of India on temporary basis. He failed to qualify at the test held for absorbing him in a permanent capacity. His services were terminated with effect from 30-6-1971. The workman and the U. P. Bank Employees Federation after making the demand on the employers for reinstatement, initiated conciliation proceedings. On failure of the conciliation proceedings the Conciliation Officer submitted a report to the Central Government under Section 12 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Government considered the report but it refused to refer the dispute for adjudication for the reasons recorded in its letter dated 30-8-1972 addressed to the parties. In that letter the Central Government stated as under: "......I am directed to say that as per policy of the Bank, recruitment on permanent basis is done on the basis of the written test. Shri Onkar Nath Kapoor was given chances but he failed to qualify for a permanent post. As such the action of the management in terminating his services does not appear to be mala fide. The Government of India, therefore, do not consider the dispute prima facie fit for reference to adjudication." The petitioners thereupon made representations to the Government for reconsidering the matter but the Central Government by its letters dated 19-9-1972 and 1-12-1972 informed the petitioners that on reconsideration the Central Government did not find any reason to take a different view.
(3.) Sri R. P. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the Central Government acted in excess of its jurisdiction in deciding the dispute itself, its decision is based on irrelevant considerations and the order of refusal is vitiated in law. He further contended that the question that petitioner was a temporary employee or a permanent workman was a disputed question of fact and it could be decided only by appropriate Industrial Court. The Central Government could not give a final decision on the question, therefore reference should have been made for adjudication.;