S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the Union of the Workmen challenging the orders annexures P/1 to P/6 vide which, respondent No. 1 had refused to make reference of the dispute to the Labour Court. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed this writ petition only qua workmen Brij Lal, Balbir, Chhote Lal, Surya Pal, Suresh Kumar, Ram Dass, Ram Pal and Shri Ram. Therefore, the orders which are now challenged by the petitioners are anneuxres P1 to P3 and annexure P/5. Annexure P/1 which is qua workman Brij Lal, Balbir and Chhote Lal mentions that the Government did not think it necessary to send their case for adjudication to Labour Court as after investigation it was found that they have worked for less than 240 days. Annexure P/2 is qua Surya Pal, Suresh Kumar and Ram Pal and it mentions that the workmen were casual workers and have worked for less than 240 days and hence the reference cannot be made to the Labour Court. Annexure P/3 is qua Ram Dass which mentions the reason for not referring the case for adjudication to the Labour Court that after investigation it was found that the retrenchment of the workman was as per rules. Annexure P/5 which is qua Siri Ram shows that the request is rejected only because it was found after investigation that the workman had worked for only one month and the his demand for reinstatement was not justified, Counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent No. 1 has gone beyond its jurisdiction and decided the matter on merit and, therefore, respondent No. 1 has passed the orders which are illegal. In the case of S.C, Parida v. State of Haryana and others, reported in, 1999(1) SLR 296 :, 1999(2) SCT 563 it has been held that when the reference was declined on the ground that the person was not a workman as he was working in the supervisory capacity the Government while considering the question whether reference should be made or not cannot delve into the merits of the dispute. In case of Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh v. State of Bihar , it has been held that the Government while considering the question, whether reference may be made or not, cannot delve into merits of the dispute and determine the lis itself.
(2.) CONSIDERING the law on this point, it is clear that while deciding whether the dispute should be referred, the government cannot decide the merits of the case which are in dispute. The impugned orders, therefore, are totally illegal and without jurisdiction and, therefore, deserve to be set aside. As a result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders annexures P/l to P/3 and P/5 are set aside and respondent No. 1 is directed to take decision on the reference in accordance with law, within a period of one and half months from today. If respondent No. 1 is not a position to take decision within the stipulated period, it shall apply for extension of time stating reasons for the delay.
(3.) PETITION allowed.;