S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - (1.) By this writ petition, the workman is challenging the order of the respondent -Government dated 17.11.1999 (copy Annexure P/3) vide which it had declined to make a reference to the Labour Court. The reasons for not referring the dispute, as stated in the order are reproduced as under : -"Provisions of I.D. Act, 1947 defining workman are not attracted besides the fact that no terms of settlement/rules has been projected to have been violated by the management and the claim has been raised belatedly.
(2.) The petitioner was working as Messenger in the respondent No. 2/Bank. He was appointed in the year 1988 and services were terminated in the year 1991. He raised an industrial dispute by demand notice is -, sued in the year 1997, The question for my determination is whether the respondent -Government acted beyond its jurisdiction when it passed the impugned order and delved into the matter, which was to be decided by the Labour Court.
(3.) By the impugned order, the reasons given for not referring the dispute, can be summarised as under : - i) The provision of I.D. Act, 1947 defining workman are not attracted; ii) No terms of settlement/rules has been projected to have been violated by the management and iii) The claim has been raised belatedly;