DCM TEXTILES, HISAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution challenging an order of reference under Sec. 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Annex P-9) made by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court, Hisar. The dispute was raised by demand against non-employment.

(2.) The order of reference of the dispute cannot, to my mind, be castigated as one without jurisdiction or that there has arisen no industrial dispute whatsoever between the parties. It is explained that the respondent worker was a Doffer in the Textile Mill run by the petitioner - company. She suffered an injury and was forced to remain absent from duty. Thereafter, she made request for reinstatement in any capacity where she could work consistent with her medical condition. The petitioner company pleads a case of abandonment of service insisting there was no retrenchment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Management has always been willing to take back the services of the workman provided she produces a medical certificate certifying that she is medically fit to do the job she was employed for. If she provides a medical certificate of fitness they would consider her case.

(3.) Without expressing any opinion on this issue so as not to prejudice any of the parties in the trial, I would not find any cogent reason to intervene in this case at this stage to quash the reference order, when the same is neither illegal nor arbitrary only because the dispute as to termination has been referred for adjudication. The petitioner in rebuttal can always plead and prove there was no termination brought about by the management. Even to enter upon the divergent stands of the parties, adjudication on the merits of the case on merits is necessary on the evidence which may be adduced by the parties during the proceedings before the labour court, pro and contra. It is well settled that disengagements can either be oral or in writing and caused in many varied ways. An order of reference is administrative in character and not quasi judicial in nature, See, State of Madras Vs. C.P.Sarathy & Anr., AIR 1953 SC 5 No reasons need be recorded in writing in an order of reference made in the subjective satisfaction of the appropriate government on the material available with it forms opinion that the dispute should be referred for adjudication. The reference order does not decide the dispute. It leaves it open to determination by the designated forum. No lis is involved at the stage when order is made referring the dispute to the labour court for resolution. The appropriate government does not have to collect evidence before it issues an order of reference of an industrial dispute as that would amount to usurpation of jurisdiction under Sec. 10 (1) (c). It is well settled that a writ petition lies only when the rights of some party have been adversely affected. A mere reference under Sec. 10 (1) of the Act does not affect any one's rights and therefore a writ petition should ordinarily not be entertained against a mere reference order and as such the petition is premature.