Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the parties. Under challenge in this petition is the order dated 28th of September, 1996, whereby the appropriate Government, upon receipt of failure report under Section 12(4) of the Industrial
(2.) DISPUTES Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947'), declined to refer the industrial dispute to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. I have heard Shri C.P.Trivedi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri D.K. Parihar, Learned Counsel representing the management and Shri Shyam Ladrecha, learned Government Advocate for the State.
(3.) SHRI C. P. Trivedi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the Government by the impugned order dated 28th September, 1986, has refused to refer the dispute to the Industrial Court on the premise that the petitioner had received all his dues and his appointment was made through contractor. He submitted that it was not for the Government to decide whether the appointment of the petitioner was made directly by the respondent -management or through the contractor and whether he has received all his dues. He argued that the Government, in doing so, has exceeded its jurisdiction. The petitioner's initial appointment was made with the respondent - management way back in the year, 1977 and, thereafter, he was confirmed on the post of Clean Feed Operator on 1st October, 1980. It was, therefore, wrong to contend that his appointment was made through the contractor. Learned Counsel, in this connection, relied on the certificate issued to him by the;