- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.2.1997 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner being CWJC No, 1080/96 (R) was dismissed, The order elated 13.2.1997 passed by learned Single Judge is quoted herein below: - - "Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application is dismissed."
(2.) FROM perusal of the writ petition, it appears that petitioner/appellant had challenged the order dated 1.2.1995 issued by the Desk Officer of the Ministry of Labour, Government of India refusing to refer the disputes for adjudication by the Tribunal. In the writ petition, the petitioner made out a case that during conciliation proceeding, although petitioner workmen was agreeable for an arbitration both under the Act as well as under the Code of discipline but the Management declined to accept it. Inspite of that without the consent of the petitioner, the matter was sent to the Arbitration. The Desk Officer faking into consideration the code of arbitration refused to refer the disputes to the arbitrator, In the case of Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1989 SC 1565, and also in catona of decisions the Supreme Court held that the appropriate government while refusing to refer the disputes for adjudication cannot enter into the merit of the case. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the writ petition was entertained and notices were issued to the respondents. Respondents filed their counter -affidavit. Inspite of that, it appears that the writ petition was dismissed in limine. 3. At the very outset, we are of the view that the dismissal of writ petition in limine is wholly unreasonable and unjustified. It is worth to quote the observation of the Supreme Court made in the case of Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 688. Their Lordship observed: - - "At the outset, we may say that the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi ought to have given reasons at least briefly, while dismissing the writ petition in limine. As stated in Fauja Singh v. Jaspal Kaur, (1996) 4 SCC 461, on the plainest consideration of justice, the High Court should have given reasons. The absence of reasons has deprived the Supreme Court from knowing the circumstances which weighed with the High Court to dismiss the matter in limine, it was an unsatisfactory method of disposal. The necessity to provide reasons, howsoever brief in support of the High Courts conclusion is too obvious to be reiterated. Obligation to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate minimises the chances of arbitrariness and the higher forum can test the correctness of those reasons. It becomes, difficult for this Court in all such cases to remit the matters to the High Court in as much as by the time cases reach this Court, several years would have passed."
(3.) IN the light of the aforesaid judgment, we are of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter is fit to be remitted back to the learned Single Judge for disposal of the writ petition on merit.;