VYAS, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dtd. 19. 2. 2001 (Annexure-3) by which the dispute raised by the petitioner was not referred to the Labour Court for adjudication be quashed and set aside.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner submitted an application before the Regional Labour Commissioner, Ajmer (Conciliation Officer) raising the grievance in respect of retrenchment and continuance of junior employees in the department ignoring his right protected by the principle of last come first go. The petitioner was initially appointed under the office of General Manager, Telecommunications as Telegraph Messenger. His name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, in the year, 1984 and after being interviewed by a Committee of 5 members, he was ordered to join the duties. The petitioner continuously served the telecom department from March, 1984 to August, 1984, when he was verbally retrenched from the services. The petitioner, in his application before the Regional Labour Commissioner, Ajmer, referred to a number of representations made by him against his illegal retrenchment. The petitioner has subsequently submitted that the Telecom Department placed a request for sponsorship of the names from the Employment Exchange in the years 1985, 1987 and 1997, but he was not intimated ignoring his right for consideration. The petitioner, vide communication dated 8. 4. 2001, submitted that Shri Younus Beg and Jaisingh who were appointed alongwith the petitioner are allowed to continue till date and Shri Younus Beg is holding the post of Phone Mechanic in the respondents department. The petitioner also placed on record, the order dated 15. 3. 84, whereby he alongwith six other persons were appointed as daily wages Mazdoor after their names being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The conciliation proceedings failed and the Conciliation officer submitted failure report. It is further averred in the writ petition that the appropriate government on receipt of failure report declined reference vide order dated 19. 2. 2001 not considering the petitioner's dispute fit for adjudication for the reason that workman/petitioner has not completed 240 days and as such no protection is available to him under the Industrial Dispute Act. In this writ petition, the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the failure report was received, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent No. 1 to refer the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication because the respondent No. 1 (Secretary, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi) had no power to decide the matter on merits and hence, the order dtd. 19. 2. 2001 passed by the appropriate Government should be quashed and set aside and this writ petition should be allowed. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent No. 3 and it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 that the competent authority was required to see as to whether prima facie industrial disputes exists or not and since in the present case, the competent authority did not find any case in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the matter was not referred to the Labour Court and hence no interference be called for in the order dtd. 19. 2. 2001 and the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. A bare perusal of the order dtd. 19. 2. 2001 (Annex. 3) reveals that the matter was not referred to the Labour Court for the reason that the petitioner had not completed 240 days and hence he is not eligible for protection under the ID Act. The question which arises for consideration is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the order dtd. 19. 2. 2001 (Annex. 3) passed by the respondent No. 1 (Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi) on the above ground, can be sustained or not? ;