BALIA, J. - (1.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be allowed.
(2.) THIS appeal was filed by the appellant challenging the order of the State Government acting as appropriate Government under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as ``the Act'') refusing to make reference when it had received failure report from the Conciliation Officer, namely, Joint Labour Commissioner. The order of rejection reads as under :- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... The order was apparently beyond the jurisdiction of the appropriate Government while considering whether reference has to be made or not? The petitioner appellant raised a dispute before the Divisional Joint Labour Commissioner, Udaipur, inter-alia, on the grounds that he was appointed with the respondent No. 3 on 24. 7. 1980 as workman and he was refused to be taken on duty on 16. 6. 97, and, prior to terminating his services no notice etc. was served on him. The notice of the said complaint being issued to employer, the employer disputed the factum of dismissal without notice. He took the stand that on allegation of indulging into dispute and scuffle with fellow workmen and inciting to close the work, he was suspended on 19. 6. 97. Thereafter, the workman was charge- sheeted. Even after giving charge sheet, two opportunities were given to submit his' Explanation but he did not furnish the explanation. Looking to his grave mis-conduct, a disciplinary enquiry was commenced. He was called upon to appear on 21. 7. 97 for participating in the enquiry proceedings. However, the delinquent did not participate in the enquiry. He was again called upon to appear on 30. 7. 97 by registered post but he did not appear. Therefore, on 31. 7. 97 by an ex parte proceedings, enquiry was concluded. On 8th August 1997, the enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. After receiving the Enquiry Report, by an order dated 16. 9. 97 he was terminated from service.
(3.) THUS, there being non conciliation, the Conciliation Officer submitted the failure report saying that despite conciliation meeting, the employer is not willing to take employee on job. Apparently, there has been contentious issue between petitioner appellant workman and respondent employer on the ground that it was termination without any notice and without following required provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, and whether it was termination simplicitor or termination was by way of punishment due to mis-conduct. The Joint Labour Commissioner submitted a failure report in this regard. Principally the position is settled and it does not require elaborate discussion that jurisdiction of appropriate government while considering whether the dispute is referable to Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court for adjudication or not is only confined to whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended to exist, and such jurisdiction does not extend to consider the merit of dispute which is shown to exist. A state dispute may be refused to be referred to Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court as the case may be, not on the ground that who is right or wrong, but on the ground that due to passage of time it has ceased to exist or it is not expedient to disturb the industrial peace by taking up stale claims. ;