G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 03.11.2011 (Annexure P12) whereby respondent No. 1 has declined to refer the industrial dispute raised by the demand notice dated 25.09.2007 to the Labour Court for adjudication. Further prayer has been made that respondent No. 1 be directed to refer the demand notice for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act') inter alia apart from the prayer for payment of compensation on account of closure of the unit. A perusal of the paper -book would go on to show that an initial demand notice was sent by the workmen, who are 6 in number, on 28.08.2007 (Annexure P2), which is alleged not to have been served upon respondent No. 5 Thereafter, notice of closure dated 19.09.2007 (Annexure P3), was pasted on the notice board that the manufacturing activities were closed down, with immediate effect, and the services of 17 workmen were not required on the next day. The petitioner -workmen, on 25.09.2007, again sent a demand notice against the illegal closure which was replied by the respondent -Industry (Annexure P5). Thereafter, on 05.08.2008, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ambala addressed a letter to the Labour Commissioner, Haryana, informing that the unit had been closed and that the Management had paid all the dues to the workmen, giving the details of payment made to 17 workmen. Thereafter, it seems that the impugned order dated 03.11.2011 was passed on the ground that the said industry had been closed which had been verified and the dues had been paid to the workmen before the Deputy Labour Commissioner on 16.08.2008 and accordingly, the demand notice was filed. The impugned order reads as under: "Regarding above said subject I have been directed to inform you that the government do not think it fit to send any demand mentioned in your demand notice dated 25.9.2007 for adjudication in the Labour Court because it has been enquired by visiting in person in Management's institution and has been found that the establishment by the name of M/s. Hindustan Tailing, Plot No. 231, Phase No. 1, Panchkula has been closed, the verification of which has been done by the owner Sh. S.K. Sethi, Manager M/s. Hind Auto Clutches, 230, Industrial Area Phase -I, Panchkula who is owner of Hindustan Tooling Plot No. 230, Phase No. 1, Panchkula and has given in writing regarding this. Management is clear about the situation regarding dues of workmen that they have got their dues in the presence of their representative before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ambala on 16.8.2008. So on the ground mentioned above your demand notice is filed."
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has contended that under Section 25FFF of the Act, if an industry is closed down, the workman is entitled for his dues, as per the provisions of the said section and therefore, the dispute was rightly raised and it was not an administrative function, which the State Government could take over and the same was a judicial function of the Labour Court. Counsel for respondent No. 5, on the other hand, vehemently contended that the workmen had received their dues and the Government had, after verification, found that the claim was fully satisfied and the unit stood closed, which was confirmed and verified and therefore, the order dated 03.11.2011 was justified.
(3.) AFTER hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is not justifiable. It is, now, settled position of law that the Government cannot make its own assessment to decide the reasonableness of the demands on merits. A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in The M.P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh v. The State of M.P. & another : 1985 (2) SCC 103 held that it is within the domain of the appropriate Tribunals to decide an adjudicatory process and it is not within the domain of the Government which has only to prima facie see the demand. The Government should be very slow to attempt an examination of the demand and decline the same and the Courts should always be vigilant when the Government attempts to usurp the powers of the Court. Relevant observations read as under: "6. Same is the case with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court accepting the stand of the State Government that the employees were not entitled to the Chambal allowance as the same was included in the consolidated pay. This question, in fact, relates to the conditions of service of the employees. What exactly are the conditions of service of the employees and in what manner their conditions of service could be improved are matters which are the special preserve of the appropriate Tribunals to be decided in adjudicatory processes and are not ones to be decided by the Government on a prima facie examination of the demand. This demand again can never be said to be either perverse or frivolous. 7. There may be exceptional cases in which the State Government may, on a proper examination of the demand, come to a conclusion that the demands are either perverse or frivolous and do not merit a reference. Government should be very slow to attempt an examination of the demand with a view to decline reference and Courts will always be vigilant whenever the Government attempts to usurp the powers of the Tribunal for adjudication of valid disputes. To allow the Government to do so would be to render Section 10 and Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act nugatory. 8. We have no hesitation to hold that in this case, the Government had exceeded its jurisdiction in refusing to refer the dispute to the Tribunal by making its own assessment unilaterally of the reasonableness of the demands on merits. The High Court erred in accepting the plea of the Government that refusal to refer the demands in this case was justified. The demands raised in this case have necessarily to be decided by the appropriate Tribunal on merits.";