DIPANKAR DATTA, J. - (1.) Order No. 72, dated September 18, 2008, passed by the Judge, 2nd Industrial Tribunal, is called in Question in the present petition. By the said order, the petitioner (hereafter the employer) has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 13,500 to the third respondent (hereafter the workman) within three months from date. It is noticed from the impugned order that the Tribunal overruled the objection raised by the employer that the reference is not maintainable.
(2.) While arguing that the impugned order is illegal and hence unsustainable in law, Sri Bhanja Chowdhury, learned counsel for the employer contended that the workman did not raise any dispute with the employer and, therefore, the Government erred in making the reference vide Order, dated March 31, 2004. Reliance was placed on the decision in Sindhu Resettlement Corporation, Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal of Gujarat AIR 1968 SC 529 : 1968-I-LLJ-834, wherein the Apex Court held as follows: "... If no dispute at all was raised by the respondents with the management, any request sent by them to the Government would only be a demand by them and not an industrial dispute between them and their employer. An industrial dispute, as defined/must be a dispute between employers and employers, employers and workmen, and workmen and workmen. A mere demand to a Government, without a dispute being raised by the workmen with their employer, cannot become an industrial dispute...."
(3.) The order of reference, dated March 31, 2004, was next questioned. According to him, the workman had on his own left the service of the employer without taking any permission after defalcating an amount of Rs. 5,000. Since the workman had voluntarily left service, the reference made by the Government ought to be interdicted by the Court of writ.;